Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237

Archive 1230

←

Archive 1235

Archive 1236

Archive 1237

Help me / guide me on a declined page to sort it

I have less experience and would like help with the page Draft:Lu Heng so i can to re-submit it having sorted the issues raised by the moderator to ensure it is not declined again. CrystalStacy (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, your draft says that he runs a non-profit organization that strives to help the entire Internet community achieve an empowered digital future.

1. That claim is highly promotional
2. That claim is entirely unreferenced
3. That is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
4. I have operated small business websites for 25 years and have also been a Wikipedia editor for 15 years and am therefore part of the "entire Internet community". Why have I never heard of this person if his contributions have been so sweeping? Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, excellent questions above from Cullen328. Rephrased/different questions:

• Wording: If "the entire Internet community" doesn't mean "everyone using the internet", what does it mean? What does "achieve an empowered digital future" mean? What does "[be] focused to promote internet governance education" mean?
• Notability: What would you say are the three best sources for information on him? (Please here, in this thread, link to the three.)
• Conflict of interest: The photograph of Lu Heng was clearly taken with his cooperation. You've said it's your "own work". We can infer that you worked with Lu Heng on this article. Please respond promptly to the request Timtrent made of you almost three months ago.

-- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary I think they have made a response to my question about paid editing. I am not sure that they have replied to the broader WP:COI issue. @CrystalStacy Please add to your response to the paid editing question ny explaining what, if any, personal relationship, broadly construed, with the subject of the photograph.

To help you, I will ask this question formally on your user talk page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The words "strives to help the entire Internet community achieve an empowered digital future", which appear twice in the article, give the impression that Heng is just a bullshitter. Does he or his organisation actually do anytrhing? Maproom (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 @Hoary @Maproom Thank you for your valuable feedback on the draft. I understand the importance of ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality, verifiability, and notability, and I will address each point raised.

1. "Strives to help the entire Internet community achieve an empowered digital future" – Promotional Claim and Lack of Sources:

You are correct that the phrase "entire Internet community" and "empowered digital future" are broad and potentially promotional without clarification. Upon reflection, these statements could be seen as subjective and lacking specific detail. I will revise this wording to focus more on measurable initiatives or collaborations the LARUS Foundation has been involved in, such as its internship program with the University of Hong Kong, without overstating its reach.

To avoid unsupported claims, I will provide clear references to these partnerships, ensuring they are factual and verifiable. I am also working to find independent sources to corroborate the impact of the Foundation’s work.

2. Notability – Why haven't I heard of him if his contributions are so sweeping?

I appreciate the point raised regarding the claim’s scope versus its recognition in the wider community. The current draft could give the impression of sweeping contributions, which was not my intention. Moving forward, I will focus on presenting Lu Heng’s work and impact within more specific contexts, such as the legal disputes involving AFRINIC, where his actions have been covered in news sources and industry reports, rather than making broad statements.

I will also ensure that reliable, independent sources are linked to highlight the areas in which his work is notable, such as his involvement in the Pacific Telecommunications Council and his legal challenges regarding IP address management.

3. Conflict of Interest and Photo Attribution:

The photo of Lu Heng used in the draft was sourced from his official website, heng.lu, which explicitly allows the use of his images with proper attribution. I have credited the photo to larus.net, as per the terms specified on the website. I have not worked directly with Lu Heng in the creation of this article, and my aim is to present a neutral, well-sourced biography based solely on verifiable, publicly available information.

4. Clarifying Phrases:

• "The entire Internet community" will be replaced with more specific references to the stakeholders involved in the LARUS Foundation’s work, such as students, academic institutions, and policy organizations.
• "Achieve an empowered digital future" is indeed vague and will be replaced with clear examples of the Foundation’s initiatives, such as educational programs and partnerships.
• "Focused on promoting internet governance education" will be clarified by citing specific events or conferences where Heng has participated or contributed to discussions on internet governance.

5. Best Sources for Notability:

The three best sources I will provide to support Lu Heng's notability are:

1. Pacific Telecommunications Council (PTC) – Election Results: 2020 PTC Board of Governors and Advisory Council
2. AFRINIC-related coverage – "https://www.itweb.co.za/article/battle-for-millions-of-african-ip-addresses-turns-nasty/DZQ58vV8P43MzXy2", ITWeb (2022)
3. University of Hong Kong partnerships – Internships with LARUS Foundation - https://english.hku.hk/Undergraduate/Internships

I will continue refining the draft to meet Wikipedia’s standards and look forward to any additional guidance you may have. CrystalStacy (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I will atttribute the phot as am suppose to, error on my part CrystalStacy (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Just looking at source #3. That webpage does not mention Lu Heng at all and merely namechecks the LARUS Foundation. To show notability you need to find reliable sources that are simultaneously independent, and with significant coverage about him. If that's the best you can do, there is no hope of creating an acceptable draft, which I suspect you are trying to write backwards. Please read all the items I have linked before returning to update the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, CrystalStacy. A couple of further points:

• Note that almost everything in an article should be verifiable from sources wholly independent of the subject. Materials from the foundation or university are not indepednent, and can be used in very limited ways in an article (see WP:NIS). Your 1 and 3 above clearly fail this test - I haven't looked at 2.
• I do't see anything on https://www.flagshippioneering.com that releases the images under any kind of licence. I may have missed something; but unless it explictly releases it under a licence such as CC-BY-SA, it is not acceptable in Wikimedia Commons. See image use policy, and donating copyright materials
• Did you use AI to generate this reply?

ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, The three best sources [you] will provide to support Lu Heng's notability fail to support a claim to notability (as understood by and for en:Wikipedia). With no evidence of (en:Wikipedia-style) notability, no article can be created. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary @ColinFine @Michael D. Turnbull From the responses i gather:-

1. The sources provided come to question and will need to provide reliable ones - if it is not too much to ask can you let me know by example the ones provided why each disqualifies ( bear with me i am new at this and in learning process)
2. Lu's image should be under an aceptable licence by Wikimedia Comms and properly accredited.
3. Provide reasonable claim to notability for the page on Lu.

Awaiting your guidance as i keep reading the items you have linked for my reference as i keep researching on other possible notable sources. Thank you. CrystalStacy (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

CrystalStacy, you first need to show that Lu is notable. Please read and digest Wikipedia:Notability (people) and pages to which that page links that seem relevant to Lu. If something written there is not understandable, feel free to ask here. A photograph of Lu will neither help demonstrate that he's notable nor otherwise help the chances of the draft to become an article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary Okay, thank you. Let me read and fully understand Wikipedia:Notability (people) before i continue . Will reach out incase of any questions. CrystalStacy (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@CrystalStacy You ask why each source disqualifies (to show notability) and in the cases of these three that's easy to state. #1 has his name and picture and no text about him. #2 says Cloud Innovation’s founder is Chinese entrepreneur Heng Lu. No more. #3 Not even his name. So all three lack significant coverage, irrespective whether or not they are reliable (which they may well be). Independence is debatable but irrelevant if the coverage is lacking. All we have is proof this man exists but like many business people and organisations it's all run-of-the-mill. en:Wikipedia needs much more to avoid being swamped by trivia. Mike Turnbull (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull duly noted. CrystalStacy (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Is the Lancer TTRPG notable enough to warrant an Article?

I am a new user and am interested in eventually creating the article for the Lancer Tabletop Roleplaying system, which I think I have sufficiently checked does not exist yet, not even as a redirect article. I plan to complete smaller tasks and edits before undertaking this. In the meantime, I would like to ask if this subject warrants an article at all.

Dungeons and Dragons has a page, as the most popular and well-known TTRPG. Pathfinder by Paizo has a page, as another quite popular alternative to and (originally) derivative of D&D. Starfinder has a page, as a spin-off of the Pathfinder system altered and adapted to a Sci-Fi setting. Call of Cthulu and several Warhammer: 40, 000 systems are marginally less popular still. I think the variety above merits some consideration for Lancer, as a published system itself. Pancakes0708 (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Pancakes0708, welcome to Wikipedia! The criteria for a topic having its own Wikipedia article are described at Wikipedia:Notability. In short, you want to see if you can find sources that are reliable, independent of the game's authors, and that provide significant coverage of the game, meaning they discuss it at some depth. These sources are the ones you will base the article on; if there are not enough sources that meet these criteria, writing an article is not worthwhile. Happy editing! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I did check the Notability guide, I see I misunderstood the order of operations, as it were.

I'll have a hunt around for some good secondary sources and see if there's enough to warrant an article.

Either way, looking forward to doing my little contributions, it's nice to be a little helper where it's needed <3 Pancakes0708 (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

article for my company

I wantto create an article for my company Ahmed alsherirf (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That is inadvisable due to your conflict of interest. Please also see our definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ahmed alsherirf, and welcome to the Teahouse.

I'm afraid that in most cases the answer is, you don't. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about your company.

If your company is one of the few companies in the world which meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then it is possible that we could have an article about it. If it is not (like the vast majority of companies) then no article is possible, whoever writes it.

Because of your conflict of interest, you are discouraged from writing it yourself; but not forbidden. As it is your company, you would be regarded as being a paid editor, so you must make a formal declaration of that on your user page.

Writing a new article is very hard for new editors, even if they do not have a conflict of interest. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.

In any case, unless somebody can find the multiple independent reliable sources which are required to show notability, it will be a waste of anybody's time to try.

Note also that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding article links to other articles

Hello.

I am new to the Wikipedia editing system and wondering how I add links to articles (Visual Mode).

I can complete some general grammatical errors in the articles but cant add links.

I hope you can give me an guide or answer on how to add links. Xboxfan38 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Xboxfan38, and welcome to the Teahouse.

It depends on what kind of link you are trying to add. The whole thing is summarised on Help:Link.

(My answer is about the source editor, as I'm not familiar with the Visual editor: see Help:VisualEditor for more information about that.)

To add a wikilink (for example a link to another Wikipedia article) you put it in double square brackets, for example [[Mexico]] displays as Mexico. To get it to display text different from the name of the article, see piped links.

To add a citation to an external source, see referencing for beginners.

If you are talking about a link to an external website, this is something you should very rarely do in an article (see WP:EL), but you can just type the full URL (eg https://google.com gives https://google.com ) ColinFine (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Xboxfan38: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. In the visual editor there are a few ways to do this. You can

• click on the button in the toolbar to get the link dialogue box, or
• type [[ where you want the link to appear to get the same dialogue box, or
• if you're using Windows, use the shortcut Ctrl+K.

From there you can choose to either add a wikilink or an external link. Please make sure you're adding links that follow style guidelines, particularly those on external links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu,

does the shortcut for windows also work on ChromeOS? (that's what I use.)

Thanks. Xboxfan38 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu,

does the shortcut for windows also work on ChromeOS? (that's what I use.)

Thanks. Xboxfan38 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Xboxfan38: I can't tell you for certain as I don't use ChromeOS, but hover over the and see what the tooltip says; buttons with shortcuts usually display the shortcut in the tooltip. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

can i post article here for review?

Hello i am new here on wikiepedia i want help can i send article over here before publising for get a review?

Wikigrabber (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wikigrabber This is not the place. Please read the instructions at Draft:Khalil seddini. Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Wikigrabber, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Your draft does nothing to establish that Seddini meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and without that it cannot be accepted as a Wikipedia article.

Writing an article begins with finding several places where people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to write about the subject and been published in reliable places. Two of your sources do not contain significant coverage of Seddini, and the third is mostly an interview. An article about Seddini must be based on what others, unconnected with him, have published about him, not on what he or his associates say or want to say.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Category help?

I'm looking at Category:Conflicts in Europe and I'm wondering why it doesn't contain every war and battle in European history in its category tree? It seems to mostly only contain rebellions, protests, and small-scale militant attacks, and then, inexplicably, World War II. Batrachoseps (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Batrachoseps. That is the main category, and you need to click through the subcategories and sub-subcategories to get to e.g. World War II. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome, User:Batrachoseps! The articles are grouped in many layers of subcategories (categories within categories). To get to Napoleonic Wars, for example, you can click the link to Category:Conflicts in Germany, then Category:Wars involving Germany, Category:Wars involving Prussia, and finally, Category:Napoleonic Wars. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Maddy from Celeste Thanks for the explanation. Batrachoseps (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to fast-track a review of a draft article?

Hello, I have a question about how long it takes for a draft article to be reviewed. I understand that it takes a few months for articles to be reviewed, but is there a way to request a quicker review of a draft article? The subject of my draft article is 91 years old and his physical health and mental health are deteriorating. He would like to see the article published on Wikipedia before his death because he values Wikipedia as a reliable and valuable source of information. Sorry if this is the wrong page for asking this question - I am new to Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. Hoptimist5 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoptimist5: no, but AfC is optional. You can move the article to mainspace yourself. However, it might get deleted.

Looking at Draft:Robert Eddison (aphorist), I suggest

• Using a consistent referencing scheme.
• Relying more on secondary sources.
• Making sure all content is sourced (currently, the "Early life and education" section has no sources).

I'm personally not sure if he's notable. Are there any more independent, reliable sources about him in particular? I suggest adding them to the article and relying on them for more of the article's content if so. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Hoptimist5, and welcome to the Teahouse. To be frank, writing an article for somebody is a risky business, as there is no guarantee that an article is possible, or that it will be flattering (see WP:PROUD)

In this case, I'm afraid that your draft does not appear to me to do anything at all to establish that Eddison meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which mostly depend not on what the subject has done, said, or created, but on what has been independently published about them. As far as I can see, all your sources are either his work, or not independent of him.

Writing an article starts with finding reliable independent sources with significant coverage (see WP:42 for more detail) and if they cannot be found, writing the article should stop at that point, since it is never going to get anywhere. ColinFine (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The others have already given you the important advice about WP:42. I just wanted to jump in to let you know that the earlier decline, for layout and citation style issues, should not have happened; these are not reasonable criteria for a decline. Hopefully it's more encouraging than discouraging to hear that sometimes AfC reviewers get it wrong - if your draft is declined again and you don't understand why, feel free to come back to the Teahouse for another second look. -- asilvering (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia awards

Is there a Wiki award for keeping a long daily editing streak? If yes, how long should it be to get awarded? Benzekre (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre, I don't think that kind of award exists here. The closest thing is maybe WP:EDITS, where it shows a list of editors who have contributed to the encyclopedia the most. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 07:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre You might be interested to look at Wikipedia:Service awards. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre Just in case you are not aware of it, you can use Special:Impact/Benzekre to automatically show your longest editing streak within your last 1,000 edits: which in your case as a newcomer means all edits so far. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Benzekre: In case you're wondering, look no further than WP:Database reports/Longest active user editing streaks (led by Johnny Au (talk · contribs).) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this info! 217.71.190.224 (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing me! Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

However, Special:Impact/Johnny Au does not show the correct editing streak. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The site would be much better if there were no awards, wikipedia is not meant to be "look at me", it is /was meant to be 'look at the truth'. Awards attract egos and boas. Begenuine8 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea, Wikipedia has never been interested in the "truth" we are only interested in verifiability, you will shortly be blocked for your appalling personal attacks. Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia deserves better than you lot, or it deserves to disappear. Stop threatening me with a ban ffs. Begenuine8 (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Do we have to have more tinsel (as it has been referred at wiktionary)? We already have a myriad awards to give editors, plus service awards, plus the wikilove that every site has, and honestly this whole thing is getting silly. Cremastra (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding artist page

i have added Page of Sargi Maan

Need help to publish that page Ramanjot2024 (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ramanjot2024, please have a look at the comments left for you by the AfC reviewers. You need to show that she passes WP:MUSICBIO to be eligible for inclusion. -- asilvering (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Sargi Maan has been nominated for Speedy deletion, so expect it to disappear soon. Listing her songs does not establish notability, nor does listing minor awards. Needs refs fo what people have written about her. David notMD (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion. There is no promotional content, and drafts are not checked for notability or sanity. -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this article subjective and unreliable?

Hello, I'm a new editor so I'm not sure on this, but I think this article may have lots of subjective words/sentences. "creative spirit and adeptness" "drive and aptitude as an engineer and inventor": Margaret A. Wilcox (more info on talk page) Ultramegavolt (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

haha I think I see it too...it reads like a praise biography. i am a new user too so I am still learning the art of writing neutrally, it's only now that I'm seeing how important it is. Waiterminute (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering how this article hasn't been deleted, or at least edited to remove the subjective parts Ultramegavolt (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed it down a bit. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Waiterminute: See: WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor Bias

Original poster was Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have been using and donating to wikipedia for a number of years now, but have not considered editing, until recently. I am curious how editor bias is monitored, especially since I have been unable to find any way to report misconduct. There appears to be a hierarchy here, and I am wondering if some of the more experienced editors, are granted, or are able to take more control, and become less accountable in the process? Begenuine8 (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Everyone here is accountable for their contributions and your comment at Talk:Veganism verges on a personal attack. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Hi, Begenuine8, welcome to the Teahouse. There actually are ways to report editor misconduct; which place you go to depends on what's going on. If you have a dispute about specifically the content of the article, you can take it to the talk page and discuss it with others there; there are also the steps at WP:DR to consider. If the issue is specifically with user misconduct, you can open a thread at the administrator's noticeboard/incidents page; please read the instructions at the top of the page fully, and understand in particular that your behavior will be examined as well as the person you're reporting. There is no formal hierarchy of editors, other than an extremely flat one that only determines who can edit through which kinds of protection; there are non-confirmed editors, confirmed editors (who have been around 4 days and made 10 edits), and extended-confirmed editors (who have been around 30 days and made 500 edits). Then there are various functionaries like admins, who are trusted with the ability to block users and protect pages. But none of those hierarchies grant any extra authority in writing content on articles; in article-writing, all editors are equal, and it's the sources that reign supreme. (And yes, I agree with Theroadislong about your editing to the Veganism talk page.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC) It should be noted that Begenuine8 has made some personal comments against me here [1] and definitely another here which I removed [2] calling me a necrovore. The personal attacks are odd. I created WP:VV and have improved 1000s of articles in this topic area. Their behaviour so far is too aggressive. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Thank you for proving the point of my query, no one else could have confirmed my suspicions better. You control the subject, one that you have a bias against. Stop boasting about your WP:VV by the way, that is the issue, that is a product of your bias, and deception. Vegetarianism and veganism are close to being polar opposites (as odd as that may sound to those unfamiliar with the latter), you deliberately merge them here to avoid your own guilt. Enjoy your continued games. Begenuine8 (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "improved" is highly doubtful btw Begenuine8 (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Begenuine8: Enough. Consider this an official warning to stop personally attacking other editors. You've been given the venues to raise questions of misconduct; if it's as manifest as you say, use them. But you will stop making comments of this nature. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Do as you will, you proved my point, now ban me, and delete the evidence. Begenuine8 (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Begenuine8 now calling me a "charlatan" and "liar" for no valid reason [3]. An admin should block this user per WP:PA. This is most likely a case of WP:NOTHERE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC) You are a charlatan and a liar. You deliberately control and misrepresent a subject to suit yourself, and this boys club supports that. It is no surprise that wikipedia is famous for this. You lot are destroying the credibility of this site, and seem unaware, or apathetic to its original intent, and importance. Have no fear, little liar, I will be blocked very soon, and you can go back to your shenanigans, boasting all the way... Begenuine8 (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC) You obviously have a hatred of vegetarianism that is making you blind to historical fact. Donald Watson was on friendly terms with vegetarians even after he became a vegan (he lectured with the Vegetarian Society) and Elsie Shrigley remained associated with the Surrey Vegetarian Society. Just because someone is vegan does not mean they have to hate vegetarians. I have been to many events and there is no hatred between the two. At WP:VV we have a mixture of vegetarian, vegans and non-veg who want to improve articles. You are spreading hatred for no reason. This aggressive behaviour has no place at Wikipedia. You are not here to cooperate with other editors or improve articles. An admin should close this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC) The editors backing you up, are not gullible enough to fall for your games, they will pretend to, but they will not, even though they will still back you up. The issue is you deliberately merging vegetarianism and veganism together every chance you have. They are two very different things. Wikipedia is now just another corrupt media channel, because of people like you, and poor management. Begenuine8 (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC) It's doubtful you know anything about this topic. Veganism grew out of vegetarianism. Nobody is claiming they are the same on Wikipedia, not one source would claim that. I have spent over 20 years of my life researching this field and I am in contact with all of the leading scholars in the field of vegan studies. None of them would promote this anti-vegetarian hatred you have. You have not cited any reliable sources. This isn't a place to promote hatred or your personal beliefs. You are causing disruption and wasting other users valuable editing time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC) User has since been blocked for personal attacks and WP:NOTHERE CommissarDoggoTalk? 13:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Money

Can you make money editing in Teahouse? 2600:1011:A03F:4A35:6CC6:AFE2:B35C:7A5C (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No, in fact you should not be thinking about making money from Wikipedia editing at all. See question from just a few days ago: § How can earn money in Wikipedia. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

50% Quotes?

Hello Teahouse. I'm a new Wikipedia editor (account created 22.09.2024).

I would like to know more about WP:IS, Independent sources. Suppose I come across a news article about a living person (for a BLP) published by a news outlet that is reliable and has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:V Verifiability). However, the article's text consists of nearly, or at least, 50 per cent (a majority) of quotes from the person in question.

For me, I see that as leaning towards being self-published. Does a source heavy on direct quotes impact whether it is WP:IS or independent, thus affecting notability verification for BLPs? (I am raising this concern since nothing is said in the "WP:" policy pages about sources not really written by the subject but whose text mainly consists of their quotes.)

Here are two references from existing Wikipedia articles that sorta meet this criteria.

Example 1: The Independent.

Example 2: Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Thank you! (I prefer the VisualEditor.) Ramkarlo82 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what you're using the source for, exactly. For notability purposes, I would say that both of these are significant coverage that would count for notability - what wouldn't so much is if it were only a lightly edited interview. This kind of quote-heavy profile is fine. Would a more in-depth biographical piece with fewer quotes be better? Sure. But this is fine. -- asilvering (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @asilvering!

P.S. Why? I wanted to seek clarification on Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:N Notability, WP:V Verifiability, and especially WP:IS Independent sources. After making minor grammatical edits here on Wikipedia (I have made around 40 so far), I aim to evaluate articles (mainly those Philippines-related) on whether they meet the notability criteria.

I have already begun reviewing references in some articles and saw numerous quote-heavy interviews with commentary, like the two examples from earlier. At first, I was unsure if such sources count towards establishing notability, but now I'm more clarified, thanks to your response. (I also checked WP:IV Interviews for more information afterwards.)

Cheers! Thanks once again. Ramkarlo82 (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Your instincts are good - I'd expect this kind of source to be treated with more skepticism in a deletion discussion if, for example, there was some suspicion of undeclared paid editing. -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is "Sex Type Icon After User Name" really necessary?

I have been Wikipedia user for 2 weeks. I am from Turkey. When I marked sex type button as "male" in my profile settings, then I noticed that Wikipedia had added male icon "♂" to my user name. That was just a demographic information for Wikipedia might be used for statistical reasons. Should we really know the sex type of the user when we look at his/her/their user name. I find it a bit unnecessarily support to the discrimination. Yes I also know that we don't have to declare our sex type. But here I want to emphasize something different. There is no problem to declare our sex type and to be shown it here, but it is not needed to highlight in our usernames. There may be a different place / part here for it. I'd like to learn your view. Thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There's no other reason to specify your gender onsite, so if you would prefer other editors not know, you are free to change the setting back to unspecified. Remsense ‥ 论 09:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The way shouldn't be this. I can declare my gender but I don't want it to be shown as an addition to my username. We don't need such bias labelling. In which social media, do user's genders are shown this much directly? Nearly none. If the other user wants to know it, it is shown as a minor detail somewhere in profile, but not at the user name. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate: the preference serves no other function onsite than the social function. If you are uncomfortable with yours being specified, you can leave it unspecified. Other editors are free to make the same choice. I would suggest that you defer to other editors as to whether they choose to divulge this piece of information about themselves. Remsense ‥ 论 10:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Also—this is perhaps a more analytical point, but one you may find enlightening—there is a considerable issue online where many spaces are assumed to be "male" by default. As such, if one lacks the ability to specify, that could also result in uncomfortable social dynamics for certain people. If one would like others to know, there's no reason it should be hidden where it will never be seen—the only reason to specify is so that others know. Remsense ‥ 论 10:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to help clarify a possible misunderstanding: You state I can declare my gender but I don't want it to be shown. This is self-contradictory. To whom are you declaring your gender? Everything in Wikipedia is public. Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

to help clarify, no objection to having gender public but why make it a bigger deal than it deserves. IT IS A MINOR DETAIL as clearly stated.MarkWHowe (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Basically above. You can simply choose not to use this option. I don't indicate my gender or pronouns because I simply don't care. If someone misgenders me or uses the wrong pronouns, I equally don't care. I also generally don't disclose on Wikipedia my age, marital status, education, field of work, or what type car I drive, again...because I don't care. If other's wish to do so, then it's not offensive to me. I still just don't care. If others wish to disclose that they really love chinchillas, Coachella, or Coca Cola, then okay. It doesn't affect me. GMG^talk 12:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  The matter is not about being offended or not. It is about the lifting all discriminative labelling wher it is necessary. The rules of Wikipedia is not something can't be changed. We are in a free world and have right to interpret the meanings of all acions, settings in the light of new approaches. All human being's duty is to expand the border of equailty and to stop discrimination on every level. Settings options can't be alleged as a choice if we don't want to express our gender. I can express my gender but I have right not to see gender identity as an addition to my username. All I am saying is about human rights. Likewise we can reach a better place where gender equality can find its balance. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  @DemirWikiTR34 My I ask where exactly you are seeing the "♂" icon? I've been on Wikipedia for years and have never noticed it anywhere "in my username", despite declaring in the settings for my account that I prefer masculine gender when people refer to me. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I see on my user page and also I see these icon on some other users' their own pages too. Here is my user page link: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1:DemirWikiTR34 I wish I could add a screen shot but the box doesn't let it. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Again, the only purpose of that setting is if you want to tell other editors this information. Just go to your user preferences and put your gender as unspecified. Others clearly like having this option. If say...someone had a gender ambiguous name like Tracy for a boy, or Charlie for a girl, I could see how it could be annoying if others kept referring to you wrongly. GMG^talk 13:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK, @DemirWikiTR34, I see that icon at the Turkish Wikipedia you linked but it doesn't appear here on the English Wikipedia on my userpage or on yours; nor at my page on the Turkish-language version, despite my gender being part of my global settings, so it must be something in the settings for what I assume is your "home" Wikipedia: all have separate policies. It is, I suppose, possible that you see the icon when you look at my userpage there: some items change according to who is looking at the page. Anyway, I suggest you ask at the Turkish helpdesk or equivalent of our WP:VPT. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, you are right. When I checked your page, I didn't see the icon and also I checked some other users in English too and no icon. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemirWikiTR34: Special:Preferences says: "The software uses this value to address you and to mention you to others using the selected grammatical gender option. Your selection will be publicly visible to others". It's not for statistical reasons. I don't know Turkish but I examined the Turkish Wikipedia. They have made a default gadget which displays the gender symbol. It's "Hızlı bilgi" (quick information according to Google Translate) at tr:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. You can disable the gadget but it will only prevent yourself from seeing gender symbols. Each Wikipedia language makes their own decisions. You have to discuss it at the Turkish Wikipedia if you want the gadget to remove this feature. The gadget has a talk page at tr:MediaWiki tartışma:Gadget-HizliBilgi.js but the activity is low. I don't know where else to discuss this at the Turkish Wikipedia. If the feature is removed then it will still be possible to find the gender setting of a user but few people will do it, unless the Turkish Wikipedia adds it in other places. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for all this information. In fact, I also started to a discussion in Wikipedia Turkish but the response that I got is the same here. I mean settings, options etc. No one wants to talk really about the ssence of the matter. In Wikipedia, I have just noticed that there is also no box for whom wants to thick as "non-binary". Many companies have started to add this box in their gender section. I undertand that Wikipedia is more cautious about issues referring to gender poltics and wants to keep the conventional approach. It may be a bit disappointing but that's what we have here. I also didn't understand why gender icon is considered as a local preference. Gender equality is a matter which requires to be defended universally. Anyway I gave up my insistence. Here some things change really so slowly. Anyway, thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@DemirWikiTR34: The reason for creating the setting is determining how to refer to users with words. The options say (in English):

• Unspecified: Use gender-neutral terms when possible (e.g. "their contributions", "that editor") (default)
• Use feminine terms when possible (e.g. "her contributions")
• Use masculine terms when possible (e.g. "his contributions")

I'm not sure what a single non-binary option would add over unspecified. The gender symbols are an addition made by the Turkish Wikipedia. There are around 1000 Wikimedia wikis at Special:SiteMatrix. I don't know whether other wikis do this. However, there are languages where the word "User" is different for male and female users, and the word automatically changes on user pages. This is done by the MediaWiki software which powers Wikimedia wikis. See e.g. the Spanish user pages es:Usuario:Rotondus (male) versus es:Usuaria:Mel 23 (female). Unspecifed also displays as Usuario. Some female Spanish users might be offended by being called Usuario. Apart from such languages, the gender-setting is not displayed automatically by MediaWiki itself anywhere as far as I know, but local wikis have great freedom to determine local policies and practices in general. Users who know the software well enough can always find the gender setting of somebody. See more at translatewiki:Gender. The English Wikipedia has many options at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Life/Gender#Gender nonconforming for users who want to display something specific on their user page. You can also make your own user box or just write something without a userbox. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

A setting like this, or the options as described, aren't going to satisfy everyone. I don't specify my gender in my preferences because it isn't relevant to my work here. I have been referred to as he/him or she/her. I don't care which, anyone can refer to me by either gender. I do strongly object to being referred to as singular they/them, however. That grammatical affectation always rankled me, so I don't use it myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that the matter is not about what we prefer. If we consider this issue over us, iy may lead us to wrong outcome. The matter is how the settings' options should be more preferrable for all users without making them feel discriminated or frustrated. Many US universities, organizations and private companies have started to present more choices to their users, applicant regarding gender type. As for me, I marked "male" box because I am a man but I have respect for whom wants to mark "they/their" option which is currently non-exist in "Free" Wikipeadia environment. Calling someone with "they/their" is not gramatically wrong because "they" used to be used for "he, she, it" in a singular forms in many documents up to the end of 19th century in Britain. How "you" has singular and plural form, the situation of "they" was the same for the singular form. We should consider this without our gender approach for the sake of people who wants to express their gender more freely. As for male, female icon, I learned that this setting is not used in Wikipedia English but in Wikipedia Turkish. All sexist icons have already left in many countries. I don't know why Wikipedia Turkish has still kept it. Thank you. DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Point of interest: "you" was originally plural, and evolved to be used as singular, replacing thou, thee, and thy or thine (singular subject, object, and possessive, respectively). And I tend to say "you all" for plural "you", as they say "y'all" in the southern United States. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

)) Thank you for the useful information, I learned something new. English is not my native language. All I want is formations (states, companies, etc.) to give more spaces to individuals in terms of freedom and rights. I met with these lines of Sheakespeare on Wikipedia while I was reading about gender neutrality "There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As if I were their well-acquainted friend" William Shakespeare, A Comedy of Errors, 1623)" I admit that I used to consider this issue not important but I admitted that it was important. In my native language, Turkish, we don't have male, female forms in pronouns, and even articles like in German, der, die, das. I hope Wikipedia also let more spaces to gender neutrality in near future.

Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns DemirWikiTR34 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

any map-makers want to have some fun?

I made a Table here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ballistic_missile_submarine&action=edit&section=14 , and I would like someone experienced to make a World Map with the data from the Table. I also want to add the locations of sunken submarines with nukes on board to this map later. Walter Tau (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You may want to try commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

All the Steps in Creating a Manual Source

I've been trying to cite a source to an archived website but whenever I get the source, clicking on my citation always redirects me to the archived website's home page. So, I've decided to create the source manually but I'm just so confused and overwhelmed with how to do so. Can somebody provide a step-by-step description on how to do it? 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:F59F:53A3:6AAD:2B2C (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. I assume this is in regard to your edit at Backyard Football. When I click on the first link in the reference I'm taken to what is presumably the archived page in question, not the home page. It appears to be working as intended? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I'm talking about an edit I want to make to a draft page of the original Backyard Baseball. I wanted to add a source for the part talking about how Backyard Baseball 2001 would be the first game to use professional Baseball players as playable characters. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:F59F:53A3:6AAD:2B2C (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The source for Backyard Football, by the way, was made by user @Cyberlink420, who gave me permission to use it for Backyard Football three months ago, in case you are wondering. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:F59F:53A3:6AAD:2B2C (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This one, right? Yeah, because of the way Humongous's site is formatted, the URL in the nav bar doesn't change. You need to copy the link to the press release you want. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:F59F:53A3:6AAD:2B2C (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Lint-errors duplicate ids

Hello! I noticed that a page that I watched has some lint errors duplicate ids this lint-error list. I found the explanation about the said lint error in this page where it said that "The standard solution is to add a lower case alpha character to the year." but not fully understand how it works because as far as I know the "date" parameter of Template:cite news only allow a date format to be inputted... Can someone explain me how to fix those? Thank you in advance! — Shenaall (t ♣ c) 03:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shenaall. I think the quote is meant for citations only using |year= like books. Stray Kids doesn't use a reference system where predictable reference ids are needed, or ids are needed at all. You can use |ref= at Template:Cite news#Anchor to choose a unique name, or omit an id with |ref=none. Or just ignore the problem if it doesn't seem worth the hassle. Special:LintErrors lists duplicate ids under high priority but it also says we have more than 3 million. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello PrimeHunter, thank you for you attention on my question! Fixed all lint errors duplicate ids with |ref=none, thank you so much for your help! :D — Shenaall (t ♣ c) 07:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I report a harmful user to the admins?

I want to report the user LubanaPB02 to the Wikipedia admins so they can restrict this account from damaging the project further. I have tried to warn the user on their talk page but they continue making their POV-motivated and unsourced edits to numerous Indian biographical articles. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@MaplesyrupSushi: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. This is the inappropriate venue to report editors. You want to go to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents for that, but read the boxed text carefully; there is a strict process in filing a report and your own behaviour will be looked at as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu - Thank you! MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@MaplesyrupSushi: Please follow the process at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Mistaken title and information- Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises

Dear Sir/Madame

I am the pr and marketing manager of SETE

In wikipedia it is mentioned as "Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises"Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises

but SETE is not an association. The correct name is Greek Tourism Confederation our official page is SETE

We would like to correct the title of our company. Also to update it and change the logo which is a little bit different.

Please let me know how

Kind Regards

Elektra Kaloudi

Kaloudi (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I've placed some instructions on your user talk page that you must follow. Please read them.

You may go to files for upload to work on providing an updated logo. If the new name of your organization is likely the most commonly used name, you may propose renaming it at Requested moves. Changes to the article itself should be made as edit requests on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Images are inverted on Dark Mode

When I switched to dark mode, some of the images have inverted luminance, but not hue. Why is this happening and I am curious to know which code makes that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellena8053 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sellena8053, if you don't get a good reply here, try asking at WP:TECHPUMP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sellena8053 The new dark mode has led to all sorts of compatibility issues which are noted and can be discussed here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Does Ignore all rules bypass No original research?

Ignore all rules states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." but does that bypass the no original research policy? (assuming the research is actually of good quality and would pass peer review) TheAbigail (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. In short, no, ignore all rules does not bypass no original research. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and pointing me to info (for the record i am not actually going to put original research on wikipedia, i just wanted to know how the Ignore all rules policy works) TheAbigail (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I want to specify a bit better, plus I feel like my initial response was a bit rude. Ignore All Rules basically exists to say that the rules of Wikipedia should work to help the betterment of the encyclopedia, and if a rule is stopping Wikipedia from properly functioning, it can be ignored and overturned (essentially the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law). Industrial Insect (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheAbigail Just to mention that IOR is not a policy but an essay. Experienced editors know that we have three levels of agreed consensus about how Wikipedia should be written. Policies are the highest level, then guidelines then essays. The first two are relatively few in number and are described at WP:P&G. There are literally dozens of essays, some of them humorous, and while most are useful, citing them to try to dodge a policy like WP:NOR will rarely succeed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you mean IAR, it is a policy, not an essay. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh! Yes, I was looking at the linked WP:IAR? in Industrial Insect's post, which is indeed an essay, whereas WP:IAR is a policy. Not surprised that newcomers are confused! Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing PDFs

So I am working on an article, and need to cite a PDF, and since Wikipedia is saying that it can't cite it for me, I am having to manually cite it. Would i cite a PDF as a website, book, journal, etc? RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@RedactedHumanoid It could be any of these as the |url= parameter is available in all the citation templates like {{cite web}}. Can you link the .pdf and the article you want to use it in here in this thread? Then we can give further advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

A: Here is the PDF[4]. B: The article doesn't exist yet, it is a new article that I am working on creating. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd use {{cite magazine}}, which is what it most resembles. Looks interesting! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for your help. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Academic notability and sources clarification (Mostly regarding living persons)

I have a quick clarification on WP:NACADEMIC. I've found a few scientists now that don't have pages, but have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and American Academy of Arts and Sciences. To be elected to these, they must be certainly notable scientifically (and is #3 on Notable Academic Criteria). Some scientists are more public-facing than others and the ones I'm talking about are the "less public facing" ones. They have bios on NAS and AAAS websites and I can find bios or brief articles on their university websites. (And lots of published research of course.) However, no true "third-party" sources, particularly because AAAS, NAS, and university website bios are self-written. So these people seem to meet the academic notability guidelines, but when creating new articles I want to make sure I actually "prove" notability in citations.

Tl;dr - for academics, is the fact that they've been elected to NAS enough if they have stayed out of the public eye/sci comm spaces? Usually NAS members have a few other notable awards under their belt that can be referred to plus some highly cited scholarly work as first or lead/last author that would accompany this. Just no independent/third party sources.

I created Catherine Peichel a few days ago, who is a pretty good example of this scenario.

(It seems I'm becoming a frequent flier at the Teahouse :P Ty all for the help as I fully hyperfocus on Wikipedia.) Cyanochic (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanochic yes, they're still notable - you'll want to make sure that the evidence for their election to whatever society is coming from that society's website and not the academic's own CV, but that's all we need for verifiability there. The "third-party" sources in this case would be papers by other academics that discuss their work, but you don't need this to prove that the academic is notable, so long as you can show a pass of one of the notability criteria at WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cyanochic I think it is an excellent idea to provide brief biographies of people like Catherine Peichel with the evidence that establishes their wikinotability. Others can expand on your work later, when more sources are available. Indeed, once the WP:NACADEMIC hurdle is passed, more details can be added from WP:ABOUTSELF sources. Wikipedia has in the past been criticised for not having any biography at all of some individuals until they won Nobel prizes. Your help in getting them into the encyclopaedia earlier in their careers would be appreciated! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Somehow I hadn't come across WP:ABOUTSELF before, that definitely clears it up more. And it's nice to know I've found a worthwhile project. Cyanochic (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

While you're at it, I recommend watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. You don't have to participate in the discussions if you don't want to (although more participation is always welcome!), but even lurking will help you get a sense for how notability of these types of articles is handled. -- asilvering (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I just gave it a scroll and added it to my watch list. It seems like most the people I'm looking at so far likely wouldn't be challenged for notability. And I'm trying to avoid any scientists I know personally. (I might seek out a place to list/request them someday, but I'm finding plenty to do so far and it's not at the top of my list.) Cyanochic (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If you ever do want to write an article for a scientist you know personally, go ahead, just declare it (WP:COI), and go through AfC instead of directly creating in mainspace. In my opinion, once you've got the hang of a basic start-class academic bio article, they're all pretty much the same - I personally wouldn't be too worried about writing one to npov, not in the same way I'd be worried about writing an article on a poet or entrepreneur or whatever of my acquaintance. Though if you're the slightest bit uncertain about notability in one of those COI cases, I'd advise not writing the article at all. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

How to login?

Hi! I have trouble with login in to Wikipedia. Please Help and Guide me! 77.65.110.55 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. What is the nature of your trouble? 331dot (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Try reading Help:Logging in. Cullen328 (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft reviewing

Can an AFC reviewer please review the draft that I created and tell me whether it can now be a draft or still needs some content pls? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

the link is Draft:James Dokhuma I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@I have a great knowledge The draft is in the backlog of those awaiting review, so you will have to be patient. I'm not an AfC reviewwer but can see that the section on his death appears not to be written in the tone required of articles here: see also this guidance about using only surnames. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have a great knowledge, I will be more frank than Michael D. Turnbull. The "Death" section violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. It needs to be drastically trimmed to include only the verified facts, eliminating all emotion, trivial details and religious sentiments. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have trimmed up the Death section a little bit, but haven't checked which bits are verifiable. Cremastra (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

How to select an audio file?

Please how to select an audio file while using tools by Wikipedia? RAPGOD500 (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll have to clarify what you mean, what you are trying to do, and most importantly which tools you are using. Cremastra (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship

Where can I find a list of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship? It has been on Wikipedia (by this or some similar name) before and it is very interesting and something an encyclopedia should have. GotoGothenburg (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

GotoGothenburg, Wikipedia has Ancestral background of presidents of the United States. Another unrelated wiki called Familypedia has Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is an article just like your second link here at Wikipedia, or at least there was one some years ago, but I cannot find it now. What name does this article have here at Wikipedia? GotoGothenburg (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Found that a sentence in Childhood Dementia is likely outdated or innacurate. Noone's replied yet. What's my best course of action?

I brought this up in the article's talk page 19 hours ago, but noone has replied yet.

So, until someone decides to weigh in on the discussion, is there anything I should do while waiting for a response? I tried looking into policies but didn't find a useful answer.

I'm thinking that if it is innacurate, it could give wrong ideas to people reading the article, so that's why I'm looking for an appropriate course of action. (And to have a better idea of what I should do if something similar happens in the future) Irina Rainbow (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Irina Rainbow, often it is best to be bold and make changes; if someone disagrees, you can then hash that out on the talk page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, being bold does make sense, since I really think the sentence is probably innacurate.

Though the only source I found for rewriting it is the Childhood Dementia Initiative's 'Knowledge base' (login required but anyone can register). But I'm not sure about its inclusion as it's not a very traditional medical source, so I don't know if it'd be accepted or not.

Alternatively I can either wait for a reply and putting a note to the relevant WikiProjects (as ColinFine suggested) or delete the sentence (more controversial). Irina Rainbow (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Irina Rainbow, and welcome to the Teahouse.

The first thing I will say is that discussing it on the talk page is a good way to start.

The second is to say that we are all volunteers, with other calls on our time; and we are distributed over many timezones.

So nineteen hours is really not a lot of time to wait: please be patient.

The third thing is that there are very few watchers for that talk page. I suggest putting a note on the talk pages of one of more of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the talk page - a note saying that you have made a suggestion on this talk page, and asking people to go there and join the discussion.

Thirdly, you are not required to open a discussion on the talk page before making an edit - though it's probably good idea with something as fundamental as this. But if you have had no replied after several days, I suggest you start editing the article. As far as possible, split you edit up into pieces rather than doing one huge edit, so that if somebody does want to revert, they won't necessarily revert everything.

If somebody does revert you, please read WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this response.

I don't mind waiting at all, just worried for anyone who might read the article and leave with a wrong idea about a relatively important part of Childhood Dementia (what kinds are the most common).

Since I'm not sure I should use the source I have to rewrite the sentence (like I mentioned in my reply to Maddy), I think I'll follow your suggestion and put up notes to the WikiProjects in the meanwhile. Irina Rainbow (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello again Irina. I think you're right to be cautious about the source. We have a higher standard of reliability for sources on medical subjects: see MEDRS. ColinFine (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to replace a link.

The old link on Masjid Al-Sabur was so inappropriate that I have to replace the link with this one: Masjid As-Sur

Do you think I did the right thing on replacing the link with more appropriate? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You linked to https://www.masjidassaburlv.com/#:~:text=Masjid%20As-Sabur%20(As-Sabur%20Mosque)%20is%20the. I ahve cleaned atht up, to https://www.masjidassaburlv.com/. Otherwise, it looks fine. Thank you for your contribution! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you made a little grammatical error. Just being politely saying that you misspelled ahve instead of have and athat instead of that. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Thinking of working on a new article. I've edited a decent amount but never written an article from scratch.

Is there a list of publications that are acceptable as sources? Preferred as sources? Not acceptable as sources?

I'm also curious about how to add pictures -- how to be sure that and make apparent that the photo is in the public domain or otherwise not in violation of copyright. Jreiss17 (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a list of commonly discussed sources, of varying degrees of acceptability. Please read more about reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jreiss17 Welcome! WP:RSP is a list of sources that have been repeatedly discussed on WP. It looks extensive but it's a drop in the ocean. Generally not accepted: social media, blogs and wikis. Preferred: books (not self-published ones) if you have them. WP:BACKWARD may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

On pictures: rule of thumb is that any random picture you find online is under copyright and can't be used, but there is devil in the details. I assume you know about Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Jreiss17, there are countless reliable sources that have never been debated or contested on Wikipedia, because there is no need to contest them. These include books by academics published by respected university presses and peer reviewed articles published by respected academic journals. One step down might be articles in journals published by by respected long-standing historical societies. The most important skill of a long term productive Wikipedia editor is the ability to independently evaluate the reliability of a source. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all.Jreiss17 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

How to fix Template:Maplink not displaying in infobox

I amended the boundaries of Tanjong Bungah on OSM a couple of days back and it appears that the maplink template inside the infobox is still displaying blue static. I tried editing the id value multiple times, but no joy. Needing help to fix this. Thanks hundenvonPG (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi hundenvonPG. Please clarify the problem. I don't know what you mean by blue static. At Tanjong Bungah below File:Tanjong Bungah, George Town, Penang 2023.jpg I see a map with a grey shape with black borders which appear to match the orange borders at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11203461. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That's odd. At my end, from both the mobile app and web browser, the maplink shows completely blue. Apparently it functions well for you, PrimeHunter? hundenvonPG (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@hundenvonPG I see https://maps.wikimedia.org/img/osm-intl,13,a,a,300x200.png?lang=en&domain=en.wikipedia.org&title=Tanjong_Bungah&revid=1249163653&groups=_bd93cf5bb5cd89f9f009d78df0d5d0b5a9dc783d in both the desktop and mobile version. It looks fine to me. Does that link work for you? Try to bypass your cache on the article. Can you see other images, e.g. at Template:Maplink? They all look OK to me. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for my slow response. It's morning now here. Checking the article again and the maplink now works, but I'll keep an eye all the same. Thanks PrimeHunter 🙂 hundenvonPG (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Category and main article matching

For South African place articles which were named "town, province", the convention was changed so that articles should now have "town, country" as their titles. For example, "Kempton Park, Gauteng" was changed to "Kempton Park, South Africa" and "Edenvale, Gauteng" was changed to "Edenvale, South Africa".

In this regard, should we also ask for category names to be changed the same way? Should we request for "Category:Suburbs of Kempton Park, Gauteng" to be changed to "Category:Suburbs of Kempton Park, South Africa"? Should we request for "Category:People from Edenvale, Gauteng" to be changed to "Category:People from Edenvale, South Africa"? GeographicAccountant (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Can somebody please help me - I don't feel safe here

I don't really feel safe being here on Wikipedia at the moment. I've requested rollback permissions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback which I take back and should've never done. I got a response I didn't like (not because it was denied, because it just felt it was too civil for me). I have ASD and can get upset, sensitive about things and get stressed out easily. No one here is really respecting me on all the hard work I do here to improve the railway station articles in Melbourne, add more images to railways in Melbourne and to fight vandalism. I feel like I've being treated as a bad faith editor. Can somebody reassure me this is a safe place for everyone? I want to continue editing here. Am I really a bad faith editor? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 11:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sure you are doing a great job here, but it can be difficult. I suggest that you just stop editing Wikipedia for a few hours, as I am about to do as I am going to bed here in Australia. Yes, it is safe place. If you get messages you do not like, just delete them and ignore them. Bduke (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey PEPSI697, thanks for your contributions! (I'm also in Melbourne, but not as dedicated to transport topics as you are.) I'll admit to being puzzled at the edit you made at RFP/R and your comment here, because I don't think I've ever seen anyone accused of being too civil here. In any case, while you are welcome to archive or delete messages on your own talk page, deleting feedback from an administrator on a formal request for permissions could be seen as an indication that you might not always comply with the policies, guidelines, or (sometimes unwritten) conventions that have developed here over many years. In other words, I can see why an admin would hesitate to give rollback permissions to someone who had deleted that same admin's comments without a good reason. This doesn't necessarily mean that you are seen as a bad-faith editor – just that you did something that wasn't a great look, but you can learn from this experience. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

My guess is that they mean "uncivil". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting it out, I mean't uncivil. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 23:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want me to remove your rollback right, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll do it. You got the right because an administrator felt you could be trusted with it. You can keep it and not use it, or you can ask that it be removed. Let me know. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

They were never granted rollback. I think the thing they "take back" is the request for the permission. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I am not sure what you mean by “too civil”, but I also have ASD and can become overwhelmed or easily upset by criticism on Wikipedia, especially by those who believe editing experience gives them the right to be rude. The best thing to do in this situation for me is to take a break from Wikipedia and come back when I am no longer upset, be it a week or a few months. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 22:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean't uncivil. See WP:CIV PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 23:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason I went to the teahouse was because I felt like I was accused of being a bad faith editor by an admin. Now, I never intend to make any personal attacks. So am I going to get blocked? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 23:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697: You can read the blocking policy to see the actual rules. I don't see anything block-worthy on your part (but note that I am not an administrator) but I think that continuing to pursue this inquiry here and on Fastily's talk page is starting to look a bit like both paranoia and harassment. Making stringent rules (both on Fastily's and on your own talk page) about how other editors are supposed to interact with you is also going to rub people the wrong way. I do sympathise with you – it's challenging when one person who is sensitive to criticism comes up against another who can be a bit blunt. When I see conflicts like this I find it useful to return to Tamzin's guidance for taking care of your own mental health and also being more mindful of how your behaviour can impact other editors and the good of the encyclopaedia as a whole. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697, there was nothing uncivil about Fastily's response to your Rollback request. And he has never even remotely called you a bad-faith editor or implied that you were one. If you interpret others' replies to you so incorrectly, Wikipedia may not be the best place for you, because Wikipedia has many guidelines and policies which need to be observed, and citing those is not an attack on you or your good faith. You might consider finding a fan-wiki or some other type of venue to participate in, if you find standard feedback on Wikipedia so disconcerting as to "not feel safe here". Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've moved on from this situation (unless no other replies come). I'll leave the rollback request behind and may try again in a few months or in a year if I'm still allowed to. I'll concentrate on fighting vandalism and other bad faith edits and updating and improving railway station articles in Australia or other public transport related content. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 11:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's an excellent plan, PEPSI697. Softlavender (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@PEPSI697 Minor note, your talk page says "Any user is allowed to use this talk page or leave a topic or reply unless its polite" which is not really what you meant. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. What would you like me to change the notice on my talk page to or remove? PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 08:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697: I think the phrase that Doug Weller mentioned is another example where your meaning isn't as clear as it could be: Any user is allowed to use this talk page or leave a topic or reply unless its polite, if it violates the rules, it will not be tolerated and that user would no longer be able to be trusted to leave a message here. Did you mean unless it's not polite? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed the message in this diff here. Have I improved it thoroughly? It not may be exactly what the feedback provided was saying, but did my best to improve it. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 00:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PEPSI697: thanks, it's not contradicting itself any more. Maybe you don't need "unless its uncivil" as that's already implied in the same sentence. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done fixed the content again by removing the requested removal of content PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 01:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Fat Bear Week

Some time ago, I tagged that article with {{Tone}}. An editor cleaned up large parts of the article, but they and I agree that there's still work to do. All I have to go on are some gut feelings about phrases that sound wrong (e.g., rivers teeming with red salmon), so I'm here to seek a more experienced editor's help with (1) finishing the cleanup, and (2) refining my aforementioned gut feelings into clear positions. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ursus arctos californicus: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. The Guild of Copy Editors has a requests page, though it may take some time before someone takes on your request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ursus arctos californicus, I fail to see the problem with rivers teeming with red salmon. "Teeming" is a very clear and descriptive word that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, goes back to 1150 when Old English was transitioning to Middle English. I did a Google Books search for "teeming with salmon" and "teeming with fish" and the phrases appear in page after page of search results. Merriam-Webster defines the word as "to become filled to overflowing" and "abound" and "to be present in large quantity", and that certainly applies to Brooks Falls during salmon spawning season. What is it that bothers you about the word? Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right, that was a bad example. It's possible that, in the context of the sentence it came from, it seemed a bit peacocky, but perhaps I'm just hypersensitive to such prose because the article had so much of it before. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: Editors, Disputes, and Front-of-Line Blocking - Next Steps?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently tried to improve a disambiguation article's introductory line but an established editor rolled back all changes with no explanation (removing the added content which is not currently on Wikipedia anywhere, but is available via a library loan for the book in question, which includes a non-condensed definition).

Admittedly, this is my first time trying to volunteer a contribution, and I thoroughly reviewed the policy and guidelines prior to making the edit beforehand. I'm quite dissuaded from ever attempting to do this again, if any trivial addition like this is going to cost this much time and be this arbitrary I might as well not contribute at all (which aligns with volunteer psychology). I'm a bit flustered because I wasted so much time trying to improve a public resource which no one will benefit from as a direct result of the editor.

Per the dispute policy guidelines I reached out to that editor directly on their talk page, they said it was a policy issue linking the Manual for Disamb but were no more specific than that. I thoroughly reviewed the page they linked related to Introductory line requirements and there seems to be no policy issue there, the edit appears to meet the guidelines. Nothing obvious stands out as a proper justification for the rollback, the edit was an introductory line edit.

I asked for further clarification, and they went radio silent but not before rolling back their talk page to remove the request for clarification.

As a volunteer I find it very difficult to contribute when an established editor is effectively and arbitrarily adding cost on volunteers who want to contribute; and acting as a front-of-line blocker to any additions while also refusing to communicate properly in good faith. No one is a mind reader, and yet the editor would make me guess at their reason as to what is wrong or their reasoning when it is not clear or obvious from what they provided.

Below is the contribution I attempted to make. I own one of the authors books (written 1925). There is no current information about the book aside from their title on the Author's page Ivan Ilyin, which was linked as a reference in the edit. If this edit were to be reformatted and moved to the individual entry portion, then it appears it would violate policy so its entirely unclear how or what next steps need to be done to have the edit included.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evil_(disambiguation)&diff=prev&oldid=1249198002

What are next steps for getting this edit moving forward? I'm open to any suggestion from knowledgeable people. 2600:8801:8000:D3E6:81E6:A780:97CD:31B1 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The other editor was correct in removing the content that you added to the Evil (disambiguation) page. As the MOS:DAB explains, a disambiguation page should only include a single short explanatory sentence for the primary topic (if there is one) and a phrase explaining each other article that the term might refer to, where the primary topic and each of the other entries has a link to the Wikipedia article that corresponds to the entry. The disambiguation page for Evil already had its short explanatory sentence + link: "Evil is the absence or opposite of good." You seemed to be trying to elaborate on that, but such an elaboration simply doesn't belong on a disambiguation page. Take a look at the Evil page instead and think about whether there's an appropriate place to add the contents that you tried to add to the disambiguation page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with FactOrOpinion. In order to make a substantive improvement to a disambiguation page, you need to have a clear understanding of what a disambiguation page is intended to do, and what it not not supposed to do. So, read and study those links. The lead sentence of a disambiguation page succinctly defines the primary topic (if there is one) and links to a more detailed article about that topic. Disambiguation pages do not have substantive content about anything. Only include enough content for the reader to decide "this is the right link" and click it. More broadly, it is not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia to ascribe the definition of such a monumental topic to a single author. That is a violation of the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it.

The current succinct definition provided is an over-generalization past the point of absurdity. This is particularly so in areas of epistemology where the definition as written is lacking identity (its circular based solely an individuals belief in good), which favors Nihilism while ignoring many common (for the time) objective measures based in observation.

The existing page also favors views on Tolstoy's pacifism and Sentimental Moralism which also violate the core content policy on Neutral point of view that you just linked.

It was my understanding that the disambiguation page was meant to help readers find the correct pages related to a matter they are searching for with many choices like an Encyclopedia, and the Neutral policy would not be violated if both definitions were included (as they would be in an encyclopedia); but the edit is being blocked and withheld.

The definition is not just a single author, the author does formalize it further than most in a cohesive framework, but its my understanding the definition is based on previous works of his and others, though much of his work remains untranslated from Russian, some of which was destroyed during the rise of Bolshevism. This particular work was written in 1925 as Bolshevism forced the author into exile, it has only recently been translated to English in 2018, but represents valuable thought in philosophy on the subject matter.

The problem here seems to stem from a contradiction in policy stemming from the same word having multiple meanings that can be contradictory, and the actions being taken to enforce the existing policy to prevent additions aren't erring on the side of giving the reader a choice.

Put another way, this could be construed as censorship since only one favored views (that are circular, and contradictory) are being allowed.

Given that my edit apparently runs afoul of your Neutral Content Policy, and the current revision favors Tolstoy's Pacifism and Sentimental Moralistic Thought, shouldn't the entire page and related content be removed to resolve the core content policy issue?

To me the rational choice is let the reader choose, its not an elaboration its a specified definition with one single shared meaning. The other isn't a real definition following rational principles because the meanings can quickly become contradictory, which is a problem when using Hegelian dialectic to describe things in the physical world.

Can you see the contradiction? 2600:8801:8000:D3E6:81E6:A780:97CD:31B1 (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You are completely wrong in every possible way about the purpose of a Wikipedia disambiguation page. Nobody at the Teahouse should have to read your extended philosophical musings. They are off-topic. We converse here about the nuts and bolts of how to productively edit Wikipedia, including how disambiguation pages work. You are on the wrong path here, and I encourage you to rethink your approach. Cullen328 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

These are not philosophical musings.

Showing a contradiction is the first step in discerning properties of falsehood, and observing consistency following rational principles and method. These two properties are incredibly important just about everywhere. These are the principles which back modern science in the pursuit of understanding and truth.

I can see this is fruitless, as there is no reasoning or discussing things with people who are incapable.

I've donated quite a bit over the years (thousands), but there is one thing that I will not ever do, and that is knowingly support or fund insanity, which is the absence of rational thought, principles, or the ability to reason (in humans).

The treehouse is stated as being a place for asking questions about policy and to get help so contributions can be donated by volunteers to improve the site consistently, but you were unable to answer my question or even admit the contradiction or consistency issues of the policies you and others have referenced as justification to void my contribution. This is arbitrary, improper, and without logical rational basis.

Bullet point #2 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation carries the meaning of what I said which you say is incorrect.

Best of luck, you and others like you are going to need it as the slow creeping ruin makes the site useless and eventually shut down. No need to respond. Close out the request for help, no longer needed. 2600:8801:8000:D3E6:81E6:A780:97CD:31B1 (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

visa requirements for Canadian Citizens

can some one help on how I can edit the visa requirements map in order to change Syria and Cuba into e-visa countries ?

link that verifies Syria is an e-visa for Canadians

https://www.emirates.com/english/before-you-fly/visa-passport-information/visa-passport-information-results/?widgetheader=visa&nationality=ca&destination=sy

link that shows Cuba is an e-visa country also :

https://www.emirates.com/english/before-you-fly/visa-passport-information/visa-passport-information-results/?widgetheader=visa&nationality=ca&destination=cu

Husam.bell (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If no one responds here, you may want to try commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Courtesy links: File:Visa requirements for Canadian citizens.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

2020 Census updates

Most (all?) of the articles about cities in Iowa have a demographics section with the results from the 2000 and 2010 US censuses. I would like to add the 2020 census data to these articles (I have a Python script that pulls the required info from the US Census server). If I do this, I'll be updating hundreds of articles. Is this a bad idea? Is this update going to occur some other way? The 2020 census results were released a few years ago, so I think the articles should have the latest data. PopePompus (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PopePompus: WP:BRFA might be the best place for this. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PopePompus, I think that you should proceed if you are confident of your programming skills and do some careful advance testing. Perhaps the volunteers who did this with the 2000 and 2010 results are no longer active on Wikipedia. The only way an update occurs is if someone with the skills volunteers to do so. In this case, "someone" means "you". Be responsive to disagreement and alert to malfunctions. Monitor your user talk page and your watchlist during and after the process. Good luck! Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and helpful reply. I'm not going to fully automate it in the sense of having the script doing the editing itself, etc. I have a script that reproduces the 2010 results (which the Census server will still provide) and I will check that my script can accurately reproduce the 2010 data already in the articles before I have it produce 2020 updates. I think I will also start with some small cities first and then pause for a while, in case other editors see that I've made some sort of mistake. I guess if I update the Iowa pages, and nobody finds I've done something destructive, I could do the other states too. I've already done one sorta large update - the County pages for Iowa counties have a "Population Pyramid" plot, and they were showing year 2000 data. I've updated those for all counties in Iowa and Minnesota. Nobody yelled at me about that. PopePompus (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PopePompus, my editing areas of interest and technical skills are in other areas, but I think the plan as you describe it appears to be a good one. If things go smoothly, please consider taking on other states. Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's not really going to technically be a bot. I'm going to have a Python script generate the text for a 2020 Census section, but I will do the actual editing (inserting the text into the article) manually myself. I don't have anything vaguely approaching the nerve to write a script that just looks at the list of cities in Iowa and automatically updates them all. The process outlined on WP:BRFA seems to be strictly tailored for true bots. PopePompus (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

PopePompus: Oh I see, you'll automatically pull the data but manually edit the articles. Your plan looks good! — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! If I do end up adding 2020 data for the cities in other states, I'll probably have to make a bot or something close to a bot. There must be more than 10,000 articles for all the cities in the US, and I can't really imagine updating them all manually. If I do eventually make a bot, I'll certainly try to collaborate with someone who has successfully made bot before, and I'll go through the formal bot approval procedure. But I'll start with the Iowa cities, and I'll do them manually. PopePompus (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Article for a dead person

Hi, I have a question about creating a page for a deceased person. Do the same rules for reliable secondary sources still apply? Thank you.Aona1212 (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aona1212 In many cases like WP:N and WP:ABOUTSELF yes. However, stuff like WP:BLPPRIMARY will not apply to your article subject, though it does apply to other living people you happen to mention. See also WP:BDP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll definitely check these articles. Aona1212 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding help of Sargi Maan Page

hi Sir

i had added category of Sargi Maan Page. Kindly suggest me changes required. As this page is Punjabi Singer Biography Ramanjot2024 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ramanjot2024 You'll get feedback from experienced draft reviewers in due course. There is a large backlog so you may need to be patient. At a brief look, I would suggest you alter the tone of the part that says [she was] demonstrating her passion for academics. I doubt that you have a valid source for her "passion", even if you have one that says she went to university. Are the sources correctly associated with the text? At present, a Spotify link is used as #3 with listings of her recordings but I don't see a biography there: and in any case that would be a non-independent source that doesn't help with notability. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Apart from other problems with it, "[she was] demonstrating her passion for academics" could be taken to mean "she was showing that she was sexually attracted to professors", which I doubt is what is intended. Purple prose and Verbosity should be avoided in encyclopaedia articles. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

hi Thanks for your suggestion

i had removed the line "demonstrating her passion for academics". Kindly suggest anything else required to publish this article. Ramanjot2024 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Appropraite use of Wikivoice and summaries of events

Hello!

I've had an account on Wikipedia for almost a decade but have only considered major editing recently. When I was 16 (all the way back in 2016!) I made a series of edits to the page 2016 World Rally Championship that can be found under the "Rally Summaries" section. Looking back on these edits, I am unhappy about them and suspect they do not confer with the concept of Wikivoice, but nobody has ever in the last 8 years come around to change them. They are also unsourced; this may be fixable with citations to similar sources as are used in the first rally summary, but likely won't support the sot of 'narrative' voice I used at the time. I think rally summaries are important to the page, and was wondering if somebody would help me understand how a section like this should properly be done.

Thank you so much in advance; I really hope to contribute to multiple areas of the project! Gman197002 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gman197002: Welcome! If you're looking to learn more about the particular style conventions for a given topic area, I find it often helps to reach out to a relevant WikiProject - Wikipedia:WikiProject World Rally or Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorsport are probably the most knowledgeable here - to ask about norms and recommendations. It can also help to look at Good Articles or featured articles in the topic area, as those will have passed some level of peer review.

I don't do much editing on sports topics myself, but after looking over a couple of motorsport FAs and GAs, my impression is that "narrative" summaries of races are reasonably common in this area. (However, as you mentioned in your original post, it's always best to have sources to corroborate the summary.) For detailed advice about how to approach such summaries, the WikiProjects will be able to give better advice than I can. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I'll migrate discussion over there to see what they have to say. Gman197002 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I do the "not to be confused with _" in a page?

I am making a cyrillic letter draft called El with acute (possibly Lje?). And I will put "not to be confused with Komi Lje" 86.97.98.119 (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You can use Template:Distinguish; see that page for usage instructions. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Article

Hi Team, I was trying to update Wikipedia with data on our Music Band.

(User talk:AscanTheRed)

Everything seems correct to me, but article have been deleted, i'm not sure to understand why / error we made.

If someone can explain to us or give some example as proper reference we can try to mirror and correct.

We have been able to register on musicbrainz without problems.

Thanks AscanTheRed (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@AscanTheRed, your error is thinking Wikipedia is a place to tell the world about your band. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that publishes neutral articles about notable topics. You have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from writing about your band. If your band truly merits an article on Wikipedia, someone who has nothing to do with your band will write one, sooner or later. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NMUSIC to understand how bands/musicians qualify as notable. In brief, only when people with no connection to the band are publishing about the band - to be used as references - can a band qualify. Listing singles, albums, events, etc. means nothing. Same for band website, interviews, social media, YouTube, etc. Also see too soon. David notMD (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Improving a high school article

Hello editors,

Any advice or resources for improving an entry about a high school? 68.189.30.237 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe have a look at Wikipedia:Article development and Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the good advice above, look at articles about other schools (ideally in the same country), and try to emulate what they do well. Always cite sources. And don't forget photos. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what the others have said, but I would add to Andy's advice that many articles are not very good, especially if they were written before we became more careful about sourcing. If possible, choose a featured article or a good article to choose as your model. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Filtering "what links here" to exclude navbox links

Hi all, per title. Is there a way to filter or check the external links for an article that are actually in the prose, rather than coming from templates or navboxes? Something toolforge-y? Thanks. Meluiel (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge \: I check if there are any redirects and use the "insource:" keyword (can't think of the right word right now) liberally. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Meluiel. See User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thanks @PrimeHunter, that's exactly what I was looking for! Meluiel (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Forbes reference written by staff and former contributor

Hi, I have a question on using a Forbes article as a reference. I found an article which is written by a Forbes staff and former contributor. I know contributor articles can not be used, but this is the first time I am seeing an article written by staff and contributor which makes it confusing. Can I use it?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexyork/2024/08/16/unicorn-spotting-these-under-30-companies-are-on-track-to-be-billion-dollar-businesses/ Landromax (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Landromax. The applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which specifically excludes inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists. I believe that Forbes "30 under 30" coverage. with a gushing headline of Unicorn Spotting: These Under 30 Companies Are On Track To Be Billion-Dollar Businesses falls under that category. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Where to find information about obscure politicians?

I am working on passing the draft of my first article on a Brazilian politician, but it got rejected because it had too many sources from Wikipedia Commons. The problem is, I'm having an incredibly difficult time finding original sources and records. What are good places to look?

My article for context: Draft:Carlos Botelho Tylermack999 (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tylermack999 You seem to be aware aware that he's got an article in the pt wikipedia at pt:Carlos_Botelho_(médico), since you quote his wikidata entry as a source. Actually, that's no use as it is not itself reliable but you may get some ideas from that article including (at the foot) the various authority controls, which link to other sources. Note that 1) if you translate anything from pt Wikipedia you need to follow the guidance at WP:TRANSLATE and 2) your draft was not rejected (which would mean you should give up) but declined, which means it may be improved. See also the advice from the reviewer now at the top of the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tylermack999. As far as I can see, your draft doesn't cite any sources hosted on Wikipedia Commons (which is a repository for media files such as photos) and that wasn't the reason why it was declined. As Mike Turnbull has noted above though, you do cite Wikidata, which just like Wikipedia, is user-generated and therefore not a reliable source. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Brazilian politics to make suggestions for finding sources, beyond the obvious strategy of putting the subject's name into a search engine. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey Larry, thanks for the advice. I’ve found some good web and book sources now. Tylermack999 (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

China project

Looking to write about Chinese topics but haven’t used wiki in awile. Is there a central location where I can accept tasks and collaborations? Can I edit on my phone? Open to helping out or getting ideas for uncovered topics. Thanks Confucius not (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, User:Confucius not, and welcome back to Wikipedia. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject China, that also has several subgroups for different topics. For tasks of a more general nature, you have Wikipedia:Task Center. Editing on your phone is possible, though may pose some challenges. I recommend reading User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. Happy editing! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Font size reduction in Edit Source

I'm re-asking this, with corrections, because there was no response before it got archived -- perhaps because of my error in describing it?

Lately, when you enter Edit Source the font size is much reduced from the viewing size in the page you're editing. I believe this is related to Preferences|Appearance|Skin|Vector (2022). This makes it hard for me to read and I'd like an option to get back the old behaviour where the font size remained the same. Is such an option already there? I can't find it. -- Dough34 (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dough34: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. As far as I can tell it's only reading text that's been modified; the source editor's remained the same and I've always kept Wikipedia zoomed in at 125%. I just leave text size at small so that there's no visual discrepancy between editing and reading. You can change it at the Appearances sidebar (or if you collapsed it, using the at the top of the page). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! That works. Dough34 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I made an edit to a semi-protected article...

I added an edit (with citation) to the article on Kamala Harris's father. I see that only autoconfirmed editors can make changes to that article—and I get why. But I'd like to know: will my edit be reviewed by an autoconfirmed editor so it can be added? Or was I just wasting my time in adding a relevant fact to the article? Jmatazzoni (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jmatazzoni, you are already autoconfirmed, as you have been on Wikipedia for more than four days and made more than 10 edits. Autoconfirmed is a low bar, to keep out the laziest disruptors. Anyway, due to the way protection works, if you didn't have the appropriate permission level, you would not have been able to edit the article at all. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Kudos for adding a ref at same time you added content. David notMD (talk) 04:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Citing a book or newspaper

What are the parameters when citing a book or newspaper? ----MountVic127 (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@MountVic127: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. You will want to read the documentation for {{cite book}} and {{cite newspaper}}. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Thanks ----MountVic127 (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What does "Check date values in" mean?. Wiki should show what acceptable date format actually is :-) Where is there an example of a correctly formatted citation date? ----MountVic127 (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@MountVic127: the cite template page provides details of each parameter, including what values (and how formatted etc.) are accepted, whether they're required/suggested/optional, and so on. There's a lot of information and you may need to scroll way down the page, but it should all be there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

MountVic127, Maybe you are talking about this. accepted formats are as as follows:
|date=2024-10-04 or |date=4 October 2024 or |date=Ocober 4, 2024. these date formats are accepted in every Citation template. see more here.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 06:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

An user had vandalized a page

Hello, I am very aware of the situation in Corsica and i wanted to improve the page about FLNC where there were a lot of mistakes. I would like help because english is not my native language so sometimes my words can be non-idiomatic or even wrong. I would like you to improve it on the style :) An user named https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd invented that FLNC was antisemitic because of a graffiti that was not done by FLNC and because of an article written by a zionist militant who fantazizes about an alliance between FLNC & Hamas that doesn't exist (and i don't see how being allied with Hamas would mean being antisemitic but that is another debate because this alliance doesn't exist), althought FLNC never targetted jews in the speeches or the acts. There is literaly no intellectual rigor or academic approach. It's pure subjectivity as i experienced it a lot on French wikipedia but i had the feeling that English wikipedia was more rigorous. Another user has deleted my modifications and threatened to block my account because i brought this intellectual rigor on the page. I can bring sources to my claims through books, articles and documentaries like Génération FLNC on YouTube. I hope you will be able to help me. Argala Mistral (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Argala Mistral Disagreement about article content should be discussed on the Talk Page of the article: so Talk:National Liberation Front of Corsica in this case, where I don't see anything from you. Make sure you provide reliable sources for the content in dispute and note that the onus for those who wish to add content is that they have suitable sources. If there are only two of you in the discussion and find it difficult to gain consensus, then follow the process in this guidance. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Talk page of the article is the correct place to try to achieve consensus. Please discuss content without attacking other editors (From your Talk page: "You should ask me before posting absolute non-sense about FLNC.") My own opinion is that the increase in anti-Jewish graffiti in Europe (not just Corsica) does not represent government or non-government organization positions, but rather the work of individuals. David notMD (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

there is no increase

this action is normally irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned in the medias

if the graffiti was against muslims and arabs, the media would never do an article about it

there is a huge racism against muslims and arabs in the West

but not against jews, they have very powerful positions in the West and every single word or action that could be seen as "negative" against jews took giant proportions

in Corsica, there are maybe hundreds or thousands of graffitis against arabs and muslims (it doesn't come from FLNC) and one against jews but guess what was related in the press..

and don't forget many actions against jews were done by other jews (graffitis in Levallois Perret, so-called agression of the rabbi in Marseille, even stabbings or the woman who self mutilated in the RER in Paris in 2002) Argala Mistral (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Government

Name the Liberia counties, district with their senatos and representatives 41.191.104.231 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I confess that I am unable to do so. 126.167.109.87 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I am also unable to do that, sorry. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 23:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for questions about using Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions try the reference desk WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Administrative divisions of Liberia. For information on their leaders, see their respective articles. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

adding my just published book to a list of books on a wikipedia page

I want to add my just published book to a list of books on the wikipedia page on the Man in the Iron Mask. I added a paragraph on the content and import of my book on 10/2/24. But I want to add some footnotes in that paragraph and I also want to add my book to the list of books given on the page about the subject. I have never done this before and feel as if I should ask for advice on how to add footnotes and an item in the list of books. I went to the instructions page but I was afraid to start experimenting. Can someone tell me how to do this? Sarah Madry Avemalakoff (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Avemalakoff: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. We ask that you don't write about yourself, as that is a clear conflict of interest and comes off as promotional. Even discounting that, you did not offer a citation to a secondary source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

OK...who could read my book and put something on about it? Avemalakoff (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ideally an editor who has no connection to you or the book whatsoever. Asking someone to do it for you automatically burdens them with a conflict of interest if they accept your request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Avemalakoff, and welcome to the Teahouse. Tenryuu is right that we regard adding references to your own work as editing with a conflict of interest. That doesn't mean that your work cannot be referenced, but you need to make a request on the talk page of the article, not edit it yourself: see edit request. Then an uninvolved editor will look at your suggestion(s) and decide what action is appropriate.

There are a number of different cases.

First, who published your book? If it was from a reputable publisher, then there is a possibility it could be cited; but it it was a vanity publisher or self-published, then Wikipedia will not take note of it: see reliable sources.

Assuming it is regarded as a reliable source, then if you think that your book provides verification for information already in the article, then you can propose that a citation be added at the appropriate place in the article.

If you believe that your book provides new information that is relevant to a Wikipedia article (which I'm guessing is that case from the edit you have already made) then you can propose material to be added, with a properly formatted citation to your own book (see referencing for beginners). Again, another editor will decide whether some or all of what you have proposed belongs in that article. (If you disagree with them, you can argue the case: see dispute resolution; but make it clear that you have that conflict of interest).

One further possibility that may have occurred to you: it is unlikely that a link may be added other than as a citation: see WP:EL. ColinFine (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I would like to find an editor who would be willing to help me get my book on the Man in the Iron Mask on the Wikipedia page of this name. All I want to do is get the book listed. I am not looking for praise or critique. I spent 15 years doing research on this, in France and archives and libraries and then I expanded my research into other fields that my research took me into: craniofacial differences, medical advances in craniofacial medicine, recent discoveries in genetics, and cultural responses to people with physical challenges, particularly facial disfigurements. I found a place (and went to it) where Dauger might have lived before he was arrested, something that no author has ever done. I have images of never before published manuscripts in the French national library that I spent time and a lot of money to get to. I kept strictly to honest research, personal interviews, verified sources, professional journal vetted articles, etc. My book gives answers that have been looked for and opens new areas of research. It is an important contribution to the scholarly work on this topic. I am sad that the Wikipedia page on this has so much information that, while many competent scholars have worked 300 years to develop them and I highly admire all of them and have studied each of the books they have written, that the first real answers to the identity of Eustache Dauger are now published and the story is far more fascinating than anything ever before written and my work is denied exposure. A French documentary on the Man in the Iron Mask will appear next year and my theories will be featured, so maybe I will have to wait for that and with the publication in French by a French publisher that will accompany it to give the public the glorious, sad, complicated, tragic story that may be the most influential event in modern French history. Avemalakoff (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

ISBN: 978-1-998414-00-0

locate press

B102 5212

48 ST. Suite126

Red Deer. AB, Canada, T4N 7C3

http://legacysector.com

copyright © 2024 Legacy Sector, an imprint of Locate Press Inc.

reference formatted - styled  for wikipedia

Madry, Sarah B. (2024). Second Son, the Man in the Iron Mask. Legacy Sector, an imprint of Locate Press Inc. ISBN: 978-1-998414-00-0. Avemalakoff (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

And by writing this you have helped cast doubt on any editor who decides to add your book as a source. You asserting that [i]t is an important contribution to the scholarly work on this topic makes it clear that you are doing this for promotional reasons, which is not what Wikipedia is for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there any way to get my book on the list with the other books on this subject? I don't want promotion, I just want to be listed with the other books. In pointing out new research in my book I was talking to you, to give you an idea of what is in the book, and in my opinion it is an important book in the subject. I do not think that should be put up for display, but i wanted you to know the extent and depth of this work so that you might consider allowing it to be listed with other books on this subject, which are in a list on the page. I am promoting this book to you but am not trying to promote the book to others through Wikipedia. Wikipedia is one place where books on this subject are listed. It is a commercially published book, it is deeply sourced (again this is to you) and I think, if the book, in your opinion, does not merit a sentence about the entirely new research findings in the book, then so be it. It's a published book on this topic. Please give me a reason why it cannot be on your list. If you wish, I can give you a pdf of it so you can see that it's a serious work. Avemalakoff (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

You're insistent in trying to get a book you wrote mentioned on Wikipedia. You are trying to get more eyes on it; ergo, you are trying to promote this book to other people. If a completely uninvolved editor (with no prompting from you) came across your book, found its contents useful, and used it to cite information, then that's not a problem. If you're going to effect any action yourself, ColinFine is right: make an edit request on the article's talk page, but it will be scrutinised as you are the book's author.

I have no interest in your book; I am merely telling you that continuing on this course of action is likely to land you in trouble with contravening a policy sooner or later, which may result in sanctions for your account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Avemalakoff You added an unreferenced paragraph about your theory to Man in the Iron Mask which came across as orginal research, and was rightfully reverted. David notMD (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

writing something

How do I write a page on Wikipedia? it’s just a small page, nothing more. 122.161.67.127 (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. What sort of article do you want to write? Writing a new article is challenging, and it is usually recommended to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles, to learn about what is being looked for in article content. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a bit like "I want to build a house - just a small house".

Building a small house may be less work than building a big house, but it's still a lot of work, much of it unseen when the house is finished, and it takes certain skills which people may not have.

Writing a Wikipedia article may not be as challenging as building a house, but everything I've said in the previous paragraph still applies: The preparatory work (in Wikipedia's case, finding suitable sources for the information) is just as challenging whether the article is big or small, and the necessary skills just as important.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Help:Your first article. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Where is the Width button?

I could've sworn there used to be a button to change into and out of limited-width mode. It doesn't appear for me anymore. Is there any way to summon it back?

(I need it to remove confusing line breaks introduced into wider tables by limited-width mode.)

Arachnosuchus (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arachnosuchus The "appearances" menu moves into the icon at the top near your username if you toggle it off. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Arachnosuchus: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. If your memories are from back when the Vector 2022 skin was made the default, I assume you're referring to the button that was in the lower-right corner. That has been shelved and is now an option, as Michael D. Turnbull has said above, in the Appearance menu. It should have appeared as a right sidebar element, but can be found under the at the top of the page as the "Width" submenu if you hid it previously. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Flag article

If I am writing an article on a flag containing a coat of arms, should I describe and explain the heraldic achievement even if it has an article of its own? WikiPhil012 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I would't have thought so, WikiPhil012. Maybe a very brief description, and if you do, use Template:Main article above the description to point to the article. ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

American game show winnings records

My name is CJ Klein and I'm trying to fix the all time top 25 winnings list on the American game show winnings records article. I want people to see the real results, but they keep being resorted back. Please help.

American game show winnings records Game$howFan (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, judging by your discussion with @Bcschneider53 at User_talk:Game$howFan#American_game_show_winnings_records and the ongoing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Game$howFan, you should get the ANI discussion sorted out first, then perhaps you can WP:COMMUNICATE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Your dedication to contributing to Wikipedia is Commendable. However, to ensure your edits are accepted and not altered, it's essential to include verifiable sources and citations. I do appreciate your efforts. Wishing you a wonderful day. Happy editing! Oleeveeya (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I got my sources from the offical jeopardy website and by watching every game show I've seen up to date. Also, I don't know all the rules on this website. I'm autistic & I have trouble understanding certain things. I don't know how to all this. I didn't know I was breaking any rules. I'm sorry. Please forgive me Game$howFan (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want to make edits that can "stick", learning how to add references correctly is essential, I can't stress this enough. WP:TUTORIAL has instructions on how. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm really very sorry for all the trouble I caused. I really thought I was doing something right. I swear, I didn't know I was breaking the rules. I promise, I'll never ever EVER edit an article ever again. I've learned my lesson. Game$howFan (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Game$howFan. I'm sorry your first foray into editing Wikipedia was frustrating, for you and others. If game shows are your interest (as I guess from your name) then I hope that you won't be put off ever editing in that area.

But besides the point about referencing that GGS made I want to say something about how we interact as editors.

New editors often come here with the idea that "That's WRONG and I'VE GOT TO PUT IT RIGHT" (I've deliberately used capitals in stating that: doing so is regarded as shouting, and it's not a way of communicating that is preferred here, but people who are convinced of their position often do so).

But editing Wikipedia isn't about getting it RIGHT! It isn't even (quite) about truth. It's about consensus - editors agreeing between themselves what is the best way to present the material. Different people have different views on this, and sometimes we need to say, and it doesn't work to keep repeating your point, or suggesting that others have not understood: if you feel strongly that it should be a certain way, it is up to you to persuade other editors tom come round to your view, by rational arguments in line with Wikipedia policy. Sometimes you need to end up saying to yourselfr :"Well, that's not how I would like the article to look, but I see that the consensus is against me".

Coming in with the idea that "I'm right, and anybody who disagrees must be wrong" is not constructive - and you're not by any means the only new editor who has got frustrated before they've understood that.

Please have a look at WP:BRD. ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It's OK. I really didn't know I was breaking the rules. That's why I promised I'll never edit on wikipedia ever again. I really did learn my lesson Game$howFan (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Why cease your valuable contributions? Your efforts are truly appreciated. When I began editing Wikipedia three years ago, I was quite inexperienced. Mistakes are part of the learning journey, and your dedication to providing accurate information is commendable. Please continue your edits, and if you encounter any difficulties, do not hesitate to seek assistance here. Your hard work is deeply valued. Thank you, and I wish you a delightful day. Oleeveeya (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Game, if you fancy coming back to this at any point, this page might be a good idea for you to read. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 15:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No. I don't wanna take the chance of getting in legal trouble. All I wanted was to tell the world the real results on the American game show winnings records article and all that time, I didn't know I was breaking the rules. I can't risk things when it comes to getting in big legal trouble. I'm never editing on wikipedia again. I really mean it. Game$howFan (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Game$howFan: I am perplexed as to how you came to the conclusion that contravening Wikipedia policies will result in getting into legal trouble. The worst that'll happen is that your editing privileges will be revoked; you will not be tracked down in real life. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

MoS:Num

Hello. I was reading the page for the Manual of Style on Numbers, to ascertain something, but did not find the information desired. Numbers 10 and beyond are expressed, written, as integers, e.g. 10, 74, 105, although words can be used in certain cases for numbers consisting of one or two words. For 0 - 9, integers less than 10, words are used. I assume this applies to negative numbers as well? E.g. -5, rather than "Minus five" or "Negative five". More importantly, is it the case that one must write "zero" for 0, or may they write "nought", or "naught"? I was changing decimals from e.g. 0.5 to "nought point five" since that is how I would pronounce the number, but perhaps "zero point five" is preferable on Wikipedia, even though the crucial words both mean absolutely nothing. Can nought be used? Thanks. ButterCashier (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion:

• The Manual of Style refers to integers from 0 to 9. A number such as minus 5 is not in the range 0 to 9. Furthermore, negative numbers are less likely to appear as such in prose and more likely to fall in the category which MoS calls "numbers as numbers" and are therefore not spelled out.
• A number such as 0.5 is not an integer, and therefore it is not appropriate to spell it out as you suggest, but one would often say something like "Half the members of the committee were women."
• Similarly when the concept of 0 appears in prose, it could be rendered by "no" or "none", e.g. "None of the committee members were women, and there were no clergymen either."

Ehrenkater (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2024 range of literate (UTC)

ButterCashier, "nought" is British English and is almost never used in American English. According to MOS:COMMONALITY, editors should select words familiar to the widest range of literate readers of the English language, so I would recommend "zero" instead. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

How to find out the truth?

I am working on the Rapier Unmanned Helicopter page and I have two conflicting sources: https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2015/edepro-introduces-two-new-projects-of-uav-at-partner-2015-the-rapier-and-the-atrox-32606153

and https://www.skyeyesystems.it/products/rapier-x-skysar/

Perhaps they are entirely different vehicles or industrial espionage? Ire Of The Shire (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ire Of The Shire. The first is described as a project of a Serbian company as is the helicopter in the Wikipedia article. The second is described as a project of an Italian company, and it is clearly not a helicopter. I pretty sure that they are unrelated. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think armyrecognition.com is a reference to avoid. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 05:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Army recognition is the only source which confirms any of the information in the article. The Sky Eye Systems Rapier vehicle fits a very large amount of the information in the article except it is not a helicopter, and is not made in Serbia. EDePro does not acknowledge the Rapier on their website, only the other very similar vehicle called the Atrox, also mentioned in the army recognition source. Perhaps someone got the two confused? Ire Of The Shire (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Atrox was in the army recognition site only, the Alecs is the one on the EDePro website . Ire Of The Shire (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The article should be rewritten. Only one source (armyrecognition) says it's a helicopter and shows only a concept model, and references a company (EDePro) that doesn't even mention it. I'd say this is a fake source. Everything else I find about the Rapier shows a VTOL UAV. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll get on it when I get time. Ire Of The Shire (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Tool to perform a null edit with one click?

For niche reasons involving categorization, I'm running through a few dozen articles performing null edits on them. I was wondering if anyone knows if there's a tool that can do that in just one click. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi TheTechnician27. See Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Purging. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Interesting. I tried purging these articles, but that didn't seem to do what I was hoping it would. Effectively, I'm wanting them to show up in the categories they're categorized in after I changed a stub tag to point to the correct category. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: Three of the five tools at Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Purging can make null edits according to their description. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Oh, I'm sorry; I should have followed the link instead of just reading the URL. Thank you for this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion apparently  Completed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

E.ms

Expense increase owner equity 41.114.235.43 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for questions about using Wikipedia. For general knowledge questions try the reference desk at WP:RD, but make sure to clearly state your question. RudolfRed (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion apparently  Completed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Fun stuff

Can I create an audio recording of me reading a user subpage I created myself? (or is that unnecessary, because I heard that all material on Wikipedia must be educational?) TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why you shouldn't create it. You could then upload it to your blog or whatever. But posting it to Wikipedia or Commons seems a waste of Wikimedia resources. 126.53.182.136 (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Expand sources in year articles

Does anyone expand these sections in 2020 and 2022, unlike 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 have already expanded sections with reliable sources. Only "health" and "conflicts" sections, expanded with reliable sources. 77.37.204.18 (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You can see for yourself whether, or how well, people have expanded particular sections in particular articles. I don't think that this answers your question, but I don't understand what it is that you're asking. Perhaps you could rephrase it. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll answer what I guess may be 77's question. No-one has a duty to expand those sections. Wikipedia editors are all volunteers. Maybe one day someone will choose to expand them. You could even expand them yourself. Maproom (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

What do colored page titles mean?

I turned on a lot of "gadgets" in my user settings, but I'm not sure which of them is doing this or what the colors mean? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What do the colours mean after you've turned on a lot of unspecified gadgets? Who knows. But you might have a colour for pages that exist (even as mere redirects) and that you've visited, another for ditto but not visited, another for nonexistent but you've attempted to visit, another for ditto but you haven't attempted. 60.47.212.235 (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about wikilinks? They are generally blue, but dark blue for pages you have visited, and red for non-existent pages. You might also have set a different color to indicate disambiguation pages. The default for that is orange. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I see links as blue, purple, red, and maroon. None are orange, but that sounds useful, where do I find that option? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: You want to go to Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance → Display links to disambiguation pages in orange. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Industrial Metal Brain. If you refer to page headings and not links than it's probably "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header (documentation)" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. "documentation" is blue so it's a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It is the headings. Maybe it should say "as a colored page header"? … or maybe I should read the documentation before I add more gadgets. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Industrial Metal Brain: The gadget adds both color and a line of text. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

how can we editor solve dispute

how can we solve dispute If tow editor are unable to come to an agreement with each other. can we take third party help Jassu712 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Please make a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion to get a third opinion from another editor. Toadspike [Talk] 13:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jassu712: See also WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Railway lines category organization

Should Category:Railway lines be organized the same way as Category:Railway stations? That would mean creating {{Railway lines in countryname opened or closed in YYYY category header}} in a similar way to {{Railway stations in countryname opened or closed in YYYY category header}}. This would help further organize the railway lines into subcategories like "Railway lines in Germany opened in 1957". I hope this request makes sense. Thanks! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito: Good question; probably better asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, where you will find subject experts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Help with adding citations

Specifically on the Wikipedia article on the Russian Civil War, I changed the date of the war’s end date to “disputed,” and whilst I have sources backing this up, some weird glitch prevented me from directly editing the central content box with the end date (instead directing me to some weird “fill in the box” menu). To make sure that due credit is paid and that doubters of my edit’s accuracy are refuted, I would like someone to either tell me how to (directly) add the citations or to add the citations for me.

Here are the sources that I used:

https://study.com/learn/lesson/russian-civil-war-overview-history.html https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Civil-War https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/russian-revolution LordOfWalruses (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, LordOfWalruses. First of all, those are low quality sources for a major historical event over a century ago. Books written by respected scholars of Russian history and published by university presses would be much better sources. Secondly, I recommend that you gain consensus at Talk: Russian Civil War before making this change. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

LordOfWalruses, the established consensus of most of the editors working on that article seems to be that the war ended with the surrender of Anatoly Pepelyayev and his forces to the Bolsheviks in Ayan, Russia on the Pacific coast of Siberia in June, 1923. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In the Infobox you changed the end date from October 2022 to "disputed" while removing a ref for the former. Given the number of editors who 'watch' this article, your change may soon be reverted. If that happens, take up at Talk (as Cullen328 recommended). David notMD (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly all of you are right, and @Cullen328, I will revert my earlier change and make it to that date. (I thought that was the correct date anyways, but the sources I found didn’t unanimously disagree, so I couldn’t say that date with full certainty. I appreciate your clarification, however.) Thanks for the help to all of you. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

information technology

kind of data to store while designing an e-commerce platform 41.210.159.51 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

all Data about contracts. But really all! 176.0.164.84 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

IP editors. This is a venue providing help with editing and contributing to Wikipedia. If you have questions about that, please ask them. Otherwise, reading articles like E-commerce may help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Makennnar

@Makenna Cowgill 2601:984:8101:13E0:E1C9:A917:A505:59F3 (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have any questions about editing or using Wikipedia? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I made a hash

I tried to create an article for Matteo de Nora who is quite an important figure here in god's own country but I seem to have made a hash of it with a draft at Draft:Matteo de Nora which I have copied over to Matteo de Nora with someone later removing my introduction. It also did not remove my draft. Can someone help me fix this? Possummayhem (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Possummayhem Since the article is now in mainspace, I suggest you just edit it there with any extra bits from your draft that are missing. Afterwards, you can get an admin to delete the draft by placing the template {{Db-author}} at the very top. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the article's lede, which appears to have been removed accidentally by AlphaBetaGamma. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I will try to improve it directly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Possummayhem (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikitext-based Editing Error

I made an error while trying to add to a table on Congressional Review Act. I can't seem to fix it. Joesom333 (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joesom333: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237.  Partly done. I've added the missing markup in this diff so that your entry is in its own row, but you'll have to add the two missing cells yourself. You may also wish to acquaint yourself with Help:Tables. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed Joesom333 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion apparently  Completed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Joesom333 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"Politician" descriptor

Hi, does wp have a policy about the use of the terms "politician" and "bureaucrat"? It seems like one would have to have been elected to something to be called a politician. I'm reading about two secretaries of the U.S. Department of Energy who don't appear to have been elected to any office, so I'd like to replace the term politician, but bureaucrat is often used pejoratively, at least in the U.S. The two pages I'm looking at specifically are James D. Watkins and Hazel R. O'Leary. Seananony (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

PS: I just realized "politician" is often pejorative in the U.S. as well, but it's used all the time on wp. I don't remember seeing anyone described as " bureaucrat". Seananony (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

A politician is not the same as a bureaucrat, as those articles make clear. Not all politicians are elected. Neither term is pejorative. Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In the UK we often use the term civil servant for people hired rather than elected. Is that useful? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

In the US political lexicon, members of the Cabinet of the United States are commonly called politicians. They are practically and legally not career civil servants with job protections. They are political appointees who must be confirmed by the US Senate and can be fired by the president at the drop of a hat. The term "bureaucrat" definitely has negative connotations. According to Brittanica.com, the words bureaucracy and bureaucrat are typically thought of and used pejoratively. They convey images of red tape, excessive rules and regulations, unimaginativeness, a lack of individual discretion, central control, and an absence of accountability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I won't worry about it anymore. Seananony (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Country first sentence wording & United States

As far as I see, basically all country articles' first sentence is worded as "Jimboland, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Jimboland" with one of the only exception being that of the United States article, which I assume is some sort of compromise made long ago between the various names the US has been called. Even controversial naming such as Turkey or Taiwan follows the aforementioned format. So my question is: Is there any specific rules or consensus in the wording of countries or territories? Or is it just a case of American exceptionalism? Zinderboff(talk) 19:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is also the case for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, and United Kingdom, among others. One-size-fits-all approaches don't usually work for this sort of thing given the variance in how different countries are named. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for listing other examples. Zinderboff(talk) 20:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Drafting in User Page Sandbox

Hi! I am trying to draft a page in my user page sandbox as a way to get comfortable the editor before I submit it as a real draft- when drafting there or in a real draft page, do I need to use extra notation in my code (i.e. adding nowiki around certain code) to prevent the page from being added to categories with live pages on accident, or is that already built in when I work in my sandbox? Pepsiharlot (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pepsiharlot, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to add categories for articles then you have to do someting to prevent the page from being listed in the categories. <nowiki>...</nowiki> is possible to deactivate the whole code but I suggest {{Draft categories}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Can someone help me do something on a draft?

I am working on a unsubmitted draft(name:Draft:Long Es. I tried referencing it,but there is no archival or access date for me,since I followed how to reference as the same on Tse with long left leg. 86.97.98.119 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The current state of Draft:Long Es is that the {{cite web is missing its closing }}, and the <ref> is followed by another <ref> rather than by the required closing </ref>.

I don't know what you mean about the dates: the access-date should be the date on which sombody last consulted that source, and if you haven't looked for an archived version you don't need and archive-date.

At present your draft has no useful citations. (A source which does not mention the subject of the article is usually pointless).

Where did you get the information from: that is what you should be citing, provided it is realiably published. ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

How to get a WP Essay published?

Hello, i wrote this, in my user page (i assume it's fine to write such things in your user page?) i'm curious how it could be published as an essay in the WP namespace, is this possible? Thanks

OGWFP (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@OGWFP: Just move it to the required page name in the Wikipedia: namespace; and let people know on the relevant project or policy talk pages and noticeboards. Use {{Essay}} on the top of the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

OGWFP, you are advising editors that they need a computer to patrol. I have been editing for over 15 years and a large majority of my edits are by smartphone. I have well over 100,000 edits, became an administrator on my phone, have written and expanded hundreds of articles on my phone, and regularly patrol many areas of the encyclopedia on my phone. What is the basis of your claim that a computer and keyboard and scrolling wheel are necessary for patrolling or any other type of Wikipedia editing? Cullen328 (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, the essay hasn't been edited since 20:02, 6 October. It said, and continues to say, that the "Best devices to do RCP on" are "A desktop computer or a laptop with an external mouse", not that the latter are necessary. It also said, and continues to say, "i'm writing this guide or essay just to explain how i typically do it, but remember there's nothing wrong in doing it your way, as long as you get the job done." ¶ OGWFP, for me, the obvious problem with your essay is waffle. Indeed, I wouldn't call it an essay; I'd call it a preliminary draft for an essay. -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

what is the smallest city in serbia

yea what 83.22.73.86 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The Teahouse is for asking and answering questions about editing Wikipedia. Try the Reference desk instead. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If you havent already gotten an answer i have a google ai overview

I did not write any of this or type any of this

This is from google ai Missourian BJMD (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Major edits of a more popular page - get feedback or just be bold?

I ended up in a rabbit hole of editing the Chloroplast article today and I'm realizing it could use a pretty big overhaul for clarity and lack of redundancy. (Am I just procrastinating on my own PhD research? Maybe...) I'm currently focusing on the Lineages and evolution section since this is an area of my expertise at a high/academic level. I'm still <1 month into this wiki editing, so posting such a major rework on a fairly high traffic page seems a bit presumptive of me (e.g. "my way" of explaining it isn't the "best" way. But to me, the article is a bit choppy/unclear and repetitive). Is there a line where a major rewrite becomes a discussion on the talk page (/sharing with Wikiprojects) before posting it? Should I just go for it? Cyanochic (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Cyanochic. This article went through an unsuccessful Good article review in 2013 and was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation class project in 2022. There is recent unaddressed feedback at Talk:Chloroplast. I recommend that you outline your plans on that talk page and neutrally reach out to the three Wikiprojects listed on the talk page, and also to the editor who left the comment on 4 September 2024. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I saw the comment on the talk page, but it's pretty far out of my area of immediate knowledge. and deals a bit more with intricacies of membranes, and less about overall organization/presentation of information. Since I ended up making relatively large edits that I haven't published, is it okay to save a "copy" of the edited article in a user page/draft page? I vaguely recall seeing this discussed somewhere, but I'm not sure the best way to do that. I presume I could then share this new draft when I reach out to the Wikiprojects?

I should say, the edits I've made now I'm unsure if they count as "extensive" - it's mostly reorganizing and rewording the information already provided by others. E.g. rearranging some information, moving information in the "evolution" section to the "structure" section. It feels like maybe something I could just publish, but would love to confirm that with at least one other experienced editor. Cyanochic (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah I found the good article review comments! I think my current unpublished edits mostly fall under improving comments on the "wandering" of the text and a little of 3b it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. Would it be acceptable to publish my current edits but then try to revive some of the conversations about splitting/reorganization of the article? Cyanochic (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The more separate and smaller edits you do the better. In each case, WP:BRD will apply, and smaller makes it less likely that acceptable changes get caught up in reversions of discussable ones.

It may also help to mention structural changes you're about make in advance on the Talk page, so people understand your broader thrust, and to word your edit summaries as informatively (strategy-wise) as possible. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyanochic, the IP editor has given you some excellent advice, which I endorse. Cullen328 (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for the advice! I had to shut down my computer and I wasn't sure how to save it as a draft (or if it's allowed to save whole pages as drafts on another page), so I ended up posting what I did change. (Totally understanding that it could get reverted.) I listed pretty wholly all the changes in my edit summary. Based on your suggestions, I'll put together a better summary for the main talk page with an explanation of my already posted changes in case someone wants to revert it and possible future ideas. Cyanochic (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyanochic, although I lack the subject matter expertise to analyze your changes, I will say that you have done an excellent job of explaining your intentions and goals on the article talk page. I wish you well with your plans to take this to Good article status. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the encouragement!! This is the first article I've come across where I feel motivated and qualified to get it to Good article status. Cyanochic (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Foreign editor struggling with english?

I have come across an edit by someone who could be Czech, or maybe Vietnamese, or maybe they just suffered a cat walking over their keyboard. Added to that, they have given Facebook as a source. And removed a seemingly random full-stop. Hell, we all make mistakes sometimes. But from the subjects covered by their edit history I see I real possibility that English is not their first language. To try to get a better idea, I started looking deeper into their edit history, except I'm not sure what I'm looking at. But I think they have had maybe 10 edits reverted within the last week, which if it is correct, doesn't look too good.

Basically I am worried that what I have seen is either a simple misunderstanding, or could be the tip of a rather large iceberg. Maybe this person needs some special guidance to get them on track, or maybe they just need a better translator. I fear that in either case, I cannot help them. Do I just walk away and trust that somebody somewhere will pick up the pieces?

(I could identify them by username, or I could point you at the article and give you a time and date for their edit, or I could cite the revision number like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1246800985, but is there an automated link or process, that I should be following?)

WendlingCrusader (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

WendlingCrusader, the editor is focused on military hardware from many countries so I did not see enough in a brief look to conclude that they are a specific nationality. It is clear that their English language skills are weak at best, and obviously a Facebook post is not a reliable source for aircraft acquisitions by the Vietnamese Air Force. The first thing to do is to engage the editor in discussion about reliable sources and coherent English language prose. If you notice a problem significant enough to mention here, then I encourage you to at least open the door to discussion with this editor. This is, after all, a collaborative project and no active editor should hesitate to point our problems directly to another editor, as long as it is civil and respectful communication. Despite the problems we are seeing, it looks to me that this editor is acting in good faith. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Article: Athreya Buddhavarapu

Hi Team,

About me:

• I am notable on Wikidata (Athreya Buddhavarapu (Q130298415)). • I am a Wikidata editor. • I have published a standalone article on Wikipedia. • I am on the Google Knowledge Graph (/g/11vrj3q626). • I have published original research in the sciences (ORCID).

I have been advised to avoid writing an article about myself. I thought I would try posting here, in case anyone might be able to help. Personally, I would be honoured to have a standalone article, even if it were just a couple of sentences (e.g., “Athreya Buddhavarapu is a researcher affiliated with ANSTO.”)

Thank you,

Athreya Buddhavarapu Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

ABuddhavarapu, a person (or lake, or river, or dog, or species of insect, or soccer match, or whatever) either has a Wikidata entry or hasn't one. I'm not aware of the concept of Wikidata notability. And the other items in your list are somewhere between "insignificant for en:Wikipedia notability" and "incomprehensible". Well, you've asked for a standalone article; prepare yourself for offers to "help" you with this. More concretely, read and digest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Solicitations_by_paid_editors. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Hoary,

Will keep this information in mind. Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hoary There is a not terribly expansive notability policy for Wikidata; see d:Wikidata:Notability . From a brief look, the main notability criterion is that a thing needs to play a role in notability of something else on a 'pedia if it in itself is not independently notable. Someone with a better understanding might be good to weigh in here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That's only one of three notability criteria on Wikidata. OP is notable there, by dint of authoring scientific papers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Pigsonthewing for your insightful response. Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it appears that you are not notable on Wikidata as you yourself created the Wikidata item, unfortunately, or so it appears. You are correct in that you should not create or edit an article about yourself. I would suggest that you not consider a goal to achieve, that being your own wikipedia page. Your activities, professional and otherwise, should lead to the creation of an article in time. Any other comments from others? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ceyockey

I humbly request that my Wikidata page not be deleted as I have also put through original research I have published into Wikidata, and the cited work to that research as well.

Research in Wikidata:

d:Q130384751

d:Q130385150

d:Q130385157 Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Self-creation of the Wikidata item does not negate notability there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Pigsonthewing for your insightful response. Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've requested deletion on Wikidata. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi

Thanks @Ceyockey

I humbly request that my Wikidata page not be deleted as I have also put through original research I have published into Wikidata, and the cited work to that research as well.

Research in Wikidata:

d:Q130384751

d:Q130385150

d:Q130385157 Athreya Buddhavarapu But if it still should be deleted that's okay as well.

Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

ABuddhavarapu, D:Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q130298415 is where you may either ask for it not to be deleted or say that it would be OK for it, and perhaps also the three items that link to it, to be deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Hoary Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion opposed, as the subject clearly meets Wikidata's criteria and the item is in use there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Pigsonthewing for your insightful response. Athreya Buddhavarapu ABuddhavarapu (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Cannot edit my own .js pages

I am unable to manually edit my own .js pages. I can revert with Twinkle and install/uninstall scripts with scriptinstaller, but I can't actually edit my own common.js or create any new userpage that ends with .js. Any help? Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cremastra. What goes wrong when you try to edit User:Cremastra/common.js? Does [5] work if you save a change without first using preview or show changes? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter Yes, of course you need to know what actually goes wrong. I am able to click "edit" or "create" and enter or remove text just fine, but when I click Publish Changes, I'm returned to viewing the page, with no changes made. The usual little "your edit was published" pop-up does not appear. If I check the version history, no edit is registered.

With safemode on (as in the link you suggested), I am able to make edits. That's rather funny, since I noticed this when I was trying to create User:Cremastra/safemode.js, which would add a link in the toolbar to quickly enable safemode on the current page. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: You can import User:PrimeHunter/Safe mode.js instead of making your own script. Do you have the same problem for css pages like User:Cremastra/common.css? If you have a "<>" icon at the top left of the edit area when editing js or css pages then does it help to click it once? It switches between two edit modes, the normal for wikitext and a special for js and css pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

In answer to your questions: no, I can edit my css pages fine.

Clicking < > twice does help; and my edit is then published. Thanks! Cremastra (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

third party opinion

About Sukerchakia Misl i have dispute with editor he don't have any reliable sources and instead of working with me to solve problems he is now threatening me what should i do I want neutral point of view Jassu712 (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Jassu712, a discussion started on the article's talk page. You then removed it. Do not remove material from talk pages. -- Hoary (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

i removed since it's no use no third party giving their opinion and that other giy is very stubborn i even offered him to do only little changes he still refused Jassu712 (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Jassu712, never remove discussion from an article talk page without an excellent reason, which you do not have here. That is disruptive editing and is contrary to policy. Please self-revert. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

okay I will do same as you said can also give me more suggestions sir how can i solved this dispute btw sir can you check [[[Sukerchakia Misl]] page and tell the source i remove is reliable or unrialble i need neutral point of view Jassu712 (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jassu712, and welcome to the Teahouse. Without looking at the dispute, I can tell you that a big part of solving the dispute is to let go of "I am right and they are wrong". Wikipedia works on consensus, and it is almost impossible to reach consensus if you refuse to consider another editor's point of view. ColinFine (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect/About template question

Hello, I was wondering what I should do in this situation.

• There is a game called OUTERPLANE that does not have a page on Wikipedia. It is mentioned in the Games section of the article Smilegate.
• There is a page called Outer Plane with no relation to the game previously mentioned.

Is the game (OUTERPLANE) allowed a redirect page to Smilegate#Games, and is it allowed to be mentioned in an About template on the page Outer Plane? Or, as it doesn't have its own article or section on an article dedicated to it, should I just leave it as it is? Thank you in advance. AkiyamaKana (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello AkiyamaKana, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the game OUTERPLANE meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (but not otherwise) then somebody could write an article about it, and it could be linked on a DAB page. If there is not an article, then it should not appear on a DAB page.

However, I'm not sure if that applies as strongly when using a hatnote such as Template:for. I think it may be a matter of editorial discretion. ColinFine (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Eric Weinstein needs update employment history

Can someone please help out here? Mweewee (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mweewee. What are you asking here? The main work of adding any information to Wikipedia is finding suitable sources. If you think an article should be updated, it is up to you to find the sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

As clearly stated on your Talk page, to make that change to Eric Weinstein requires a valid reference added at the same time. Teahouse hosts are here to advise, not to do your homework. David notMD (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mweewee: I've changed "As of 2021 is" to "As of 2021 was", since that is all that the current source supports. However, we need a reliable source (i.e. not another wiki) for him having ceased doing that, as well as whatever he is doing now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

creating artical

what are the steps in creating an article in Wikipedia? Petertsamson247 (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read Help:Your first article; if anything is unclear, Petertsamson247, feel free to ask about it here. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read Help:Your first article to create a new article. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

New Article Submission: Adam Schoon

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia, I have submitted an article about a gentleman that has worked as a British TV Presenter and renowned Art's speciesist for more than 40 years. I don't fully understand how to use the Wikipedia platform, but would love some assistance to get this page published.

Can someone assist with publishing this artictle? Georgehobson1994 (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Seemingly about Draft:Adam Schoon. How is it that you know about Schoon's personal life, Georgehobson1994? -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Content needs to be sentences. Teahouse hosts are here to advise, but not to be co-authors. David notMD (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Georgehobson1994, and welcome to the Teahouse. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

HOWEVER, as you have created Draft:Adam Schoon, be aware that all facts about a living person need to be verified by references. See WP:BLP. For example. MANY of your 'references' confirm that these schools and organizations exist, but make no mention of Schoon! Carry on!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Your draft has been declined, as it does not meet the criteria for inline citations. To have your draft accepted, add inline citations and look for reliable sources. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more information on referencing for newcomers. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined- need help please

I recently found out that the article Draft:Spaceflight Simulator was declined. May I have some more resources on why this doesn't work? I also have another article Draft:Fuller GT Magnet Elementary. I have recently resubmitted this, but before this it was declined. I am just requesting a bit of help on both articles, as well as tools that I can use (eg citation bot on toolforge) Cooldudeseven7 (Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 11:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the guidance pages linked to from the messages at the top of your declined draft? Having done so, please be more specific about the aspects on which you require clarification. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I am requesting a bit of help on references- I can't seem to find a reputable reference that is able to document enough information. Cooldudeseven7 (Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 11:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Then it may be that your subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Remember, though, that sources need not be online. You can use books or magazines from a library or your own collection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Roger that. If I find an internal document that is on google docs, would that count as a source that I can use?? Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 11:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what "internal document" means, Cooldudeseven7, but it's unlikely to be from an independent, disinterested source. So probably not, no. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Just saying, If I find a google docs document about the article, is it safe to use (if notable)? Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 12:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Google Docs is merely a file repository. It hosts superb academic papers, garbage, and anything else. Mere availability from Google Docs says nothing about significance or reliability. Where was this document published before somebody uploaded a PDF (or JPEG or whatever) of it to Google Docs? In what sense would the document be "notable"? -- Hoary (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

All I am saying is that if we find a source on google docs, can we use it. Simple as that. Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 13:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Only if you can also trace it to a reputable published source. Maproom (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cooldudeseven7: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. As a point of minor pedantry, sources don't have to be wikinotable, but they do need to be reliable. That depends on a few things. Google Docs is known for having the ability to allow real-time collaboration, so you'd have to show that anyone who's edited the document is reputable and follows strict editorial oversight, as the possibility of it being user-generated content is high.

Your use of the term internal document leads me to believe that whatever source you're planning to use comes from the organisation itself; that suggests that it is a primary source and not independent of the subject, and as such would not contribute to demonstrating any wikinotability. You can still use it in an article, but under limited circumstances. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!! Thanks, Cooldudeseven7 (Cheers! Let's Discuss over a cup of tea!) 13:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! The reason why your draft was declined is because it does not meet the criteria for an article. An article must have citations to reliable sources and inline citations. Also should be informative. But creating new articles is a noble effort so keep up the great work otherwise! Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I just made my first wikipidia page draft

Draft:Jewish Educational Media do you think its good and what can i do to improve it and hopefully get it aproved YisroelB501 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, YisroelB501. Minor point, but "educational" is misspelled. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, violating Verifiability, a core content policy. Most important, you need to include and summarize references to reliable sources completely independent of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement that devote significant coverage to this project. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

there isnt realy that much sorces completly indipendant from the chabad lubavich movment. and jem is not part of the chabd lubavich movement. it is a private non profit orginization and the majority of my sorces https://chabad.org and https://collive.com/ are sites seen on many other pages with things that are in the chabad lubavich movment. YisroelB501 (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@YisroelB501: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. Alas, if you can't find sources that satisfy the golden rule, you won't be able to establish that the organisation is wikinotable and any further work into the draft would be for naught. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

but its not dependand with the sorces. https://chabad.org and https://collive.com/ https://anash.orgare completly detached with Jewish Educatinal Media. and i have a bunch of other sorces from other places YisroelB501 (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll have to press to doubt that an organisation that is dedicated to the production and distribution multimedia from a Chabad-Lubavitch perspective. (links in original; draft diff) is independent from a site called Chabad.org. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, are you going to answer the question I posed you earlier (here) about the remarkable difference between (A) the prose style of your draft and (B) your prose style in the teahouse? -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, no uninvolved editor who knows the slightest bit about Judaism could possibly read your draft and then believe your claim that jem is not part of the chabd lubavich movement. You must tell the truth if you expect Teahouse hosts to assist you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

chabad-lubavich has many orginizations affiliated to it such as Aleph Institute, freindship circle, gan israel, Rohr Jewish Learning Institute, kehot and many more. see Chabad affiliated organizations JEM spreads many chabad-lubavich teachings but it is not part of it even look at the list. it was made by someone who is chabad-lubavich but that doesnt mean anything, they literlly are called Jewish Educational Media and not Chabad Educational Media. Chabad is a trademark meaning no non chabad afiliated orginizations can call themselfs chabad. and besides most wikipidia pages on chabad-lubavich have most of their sorces from https://chabad.org https://collive.com/ and https://anash.org and even chabad books. see freindship circle gan israel farbrengen. 770 Eastern Parkway (that page has reliable news cites but only for the recent incedent with the tunnels) YisroelB501 (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

YisroelB501, just because some articles about Chabad-Lubavitch organizations are poorly referenced to sources that are not independent from Chabad-Lubavitch does not mean that Wikipedia should accept another poor quality article lacking references to significant coverage in sources fully independent of Chabad-Lubavitch. Instead, you should be trying to find and add fully independent sources to those articles, or merge that content to Chabad affiliated organizations. A freestanding article should not survive without references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. This is Wikipedia 101, and is a matter of well-established policy. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Aleph Institute has several fully independent sources, although the unreliable New York Post tabloid should be removed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Friendship Circle (organization) has several fully independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@YisroelB501: I used ProQuest, to which I have access through The Wikipedia Library, to search for sources, and found this. If you can't access it, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy.

• Shandler, J. (2020). The savior and the survivor: Virtual afterlives in new media. Jewish Film & New Media, 8(1), 23-47. doi:10.1353/jfn.2020.0001

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Your draft does not meet the verifiability policy. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

declined

may i know the reason for decline as im creating wikipedia for the first time user name is (Reshine Bidar) Reshine Bidar (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reshine Bidar your draft Draft:Rohan Kumar lists the decline reason: it does not have any sources. You need significant coverage in multiple sources that are reliable and independent for an article to be accepted. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Reshine Bidar. The draft article is called Draft: Rohan Kumar but it is about Rashine Organisation. The title should match what you are writing about. If you haven’t done so already please read and study Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners. I would suggest that you search for Wikipedia articles about similar organizations, and study how they are organized, and what is in them. Then look for good references on what you want to write about. Unfortunately, if you can’t find good references, you will not be able to continue with your project. Karenthewriter (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are no references then you can ask for your draft to be deleted by putting Db-author at the top inside double curly brackets {{ }}. David notMD (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Your draft has been declined, because it does not have any citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. Some basic criteria is to write content from a neutral point of view, no plagiarism and add citations to reliable sources. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing a questionable murderer article

I have found about a person that doesn't mention anything except her murder details and her interactions with the law enforcement. She isn't notable for much more than her crimes. Does it mean that the article qualifies for deleting at all, including speedy deletion? Or do I have to use other options in this case? Antitransphobe (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Antitransphobe, your question is too vague to answer. Please furnish the title of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

An article in question is Harvey Marcelin, which doesn't contain much information and isn't much more notable than most murders (WP:CRIME). However, as not to bog down the wiki with pointless deletion request, I want to seek a second opinion here. Antitransphobe (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say it contains a good deal of information, and is moderately well (though could be better) referenced to what look like mostly Reliable sources (I'd prefer those from the New York Post be replaced by others) – on Wikipedia 'notable' means 'well-documented', not 'significant'. Also, most murders aren't carried out by a suspected serial killer.

I can understand from your Username why you might feel uneasy about the article (I have trans friends of long standing), but facts are facts, as long as they are presented in a neutral manner which seems to be the case here. Just my opinion, though. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with the IP. The New York Post references should be removed. The article should be moved to Marceline Harvey. The striking thing to me about this case is not that the person is transgender, but rather that their first murder was committed in 1963, their second murder in 1985, and their third alleged murder in 2022. That is highly unusual. According to WP:PERP, coverage in Wikipedia is appropriate when The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. I could be wrong, but I consider it unlikely that an Articles for deletion debate would be successful. Cullen328 (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think the article is sufficiently referenced, and notability seems to be established. References could be improved with further WP:RS, though. GhostOfNoMan 17:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m on a password time bomb

So, I lost this device a couple months ago, so I tried to log in on multiple devices, but it says that I forgot the password. I can still remember some of the password details but I won’t share it because hackers. I just found this device with the cookies still in place, with my account. Bu it says every year you are logged out from the account. So a few months from now, I will be locked out until I remember the password. It is impossible to link a email due to personal reasons. Am I doomed to be forever locked out? I really don’t want to start over. K.O.518 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@K.O.518: Welcome to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1237. When you say [i]t is impossible to link a [sic] email due to personal reasons, does that mean you are reluctant or that your device is literally incapable of letting you do such a thing? If I were you, I'd change my email address to one I have access to (potentially a one-time address), use a logged-out instance to say I forgot my password, change my password, then once that's done unlink my email address from the account.

Looking at your account you've only made roughly 80 edits, so if you do lose access to it the only thing you lose out on is autoconfirmed status, which is easy to reclaim on a new account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It should also be possible for you to create an alternative account using your current account - which would make it obvious it's you - disclose in the new account's user page that that will be your new account in case you never recover your password, and use that account if you do lose all access to the current one. – 2804:F1...D3:291B (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@K.O.518: Try going into your user preferences and setting up your email address. That way when the password expires, you can reset it via the "I forgot my password" link under the login prompt.

I don't know why more people don't add their email to their Wikipedia account. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist I think many of us are reluctant to give away our personal email addresses to every website that asks for it. I wouldn't expect to walk in to a shop and be told that if I didn't give them my email address or mobile phone number I wouldn't be allowed back in again without it. For that reason (and expecting to be contacted as an admin), I created a separate email address for use solely with Wikipedia. But I suspect most folk simply don't want to do this, and I don't blame them. Thinking ahead about potential password loss probably isn't at the top of most people's agendas. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you said. Bottom line, if you create an account and expect to use it more than once, then you provide an email address for recovery. Especially on Wikipedia, where you don't even need an account to edit, so if you go through the trouble of creating one, it's likely because you plan to use it. So provide an email address. It's that simple. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia prompt for your account password when adding or changing an email address? I could've sworn it does. If so, it would mean the situation is impossible to resolve. (I could be wrong or misremembering, though.) GhostOfNoMan 18:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're already logged in (and I could be misremembering too), you can put your email address in preferences and it sends that address a confirmation email. But from that point, confirming it may require login... although it may work if you're already logged in on the same device. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Help needed with editing an article draft (AfC) with little "significant coverage"

Dear editors, may I ask for your help with editing a draft for my first article on an organization (online marketplace) with little "significant coverage"? I have compiled dozens of references from universities, scientific societies, and academic peer-reviewed journals, which are arguably independent, reliable, and secondary. Unfortunately, none of these sources seems to provide a significant, in-depth coverage of the organization, as exemplified in WP:NCORP. However, based on the above-mentioned independent, reliable, and secondary references, I would nevertheless like to make the case for the notability of the above-mentioned organization and have tried to "piece together" an article without a clear significant coverage. I would appreciate it if an experienced editor could take a look at it and provide some feedback before I resubmit it for the AfC review. Here's the link to my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eloquenti. Thank you very much. Uniprofessor (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniprofessor, the relevant notability guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which is taken very seriously. It calls for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. How can you argue for notability when you admit yourself that the organization in question does not meet the notability guideline? Why should this particular organization as opposed to other groups get an exception from the guideline? Cullen328 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Although only an essay, it may help to explain your problem if you read Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability - Arjayay (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Cullen328, thank you for your prompt reply. I understand the notability requirement and am not arguing for an exception. I realize my previous wording regarding the lack of "significant coverage" was misleading, and I apologize for the confusion. What I meant to say is that, for the organization at hand, the significant coverage is arguably the weakest out of the required criteria. As mentioned in the feedback of the original reviewer of the article, "what counts as significant is subjective, and anything from one to a few paragraphs can be a grey area". Several of the cited independent, reliable, and secondary references provide a one-paragraph coverage of the topic at hand, and, based on my expertise in this field, this suffices to establish the significance of this organization. However, I would like to seek help from an experienced editor to review my draft before I resubmit it. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniprofessor, your draft has 29 references. Please mention the very best three of them that are independent, reliable and provide the most in-depth coverage of this organization. Not four, not five, but your three best sources. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Cullen328! I can revise the draft to reduce the number of references, but I'm not sure if I can establish a clear notability with only three best sources. (Is there Wikipedia guidance to reduce the number of references to three?) I should have mentioned earlier that the challenge behind this article is that there is not a single (or a couple of) reference that provides an in-depth coverage of this topic (say, a lengthy news article). Instead, I would like to make the case for significance based on the entirety of the assembled independent, reliable, and secondary sources, each of which discusses a slightly different aspect of the organization at hand. Please advise. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniprofessor. I neither asked you to, nor did I imply that you should reduce the number of your references at this time. I simply asked you to mention the three best of your references here. Since you are unwilling to respond to my entirely reasonable request, I will withdraw from this conversation. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Cullen328, I'm sorry for missing your point. It was not clear to me from your previous comment that you would like me to mention the three best references here, in the Teahouse. I had wrongly assumed from the context that you are referring to the draft (with too many/29 references), and that you wanted me to revise it around the top three references. Your request is, of course, perfectly reasonable, and please accept my apologies for misunderstanding it. Here are 3 references mentioning the organization at hand:

1. University of Michigan: https://adr.engin.umich.edu/research-development/resources/writing-editing/

2. Harvard University: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research-strategy-and-development/faculty-resources/research-scientist-resource-page/

3. North Carolina State University: https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/do/grants-and-funding/find-collaborators

As previously mentioned, none of the references provides a very lengthy discussion of the organization, but I think that one can make the case for significance based on the entirety of the references cited in my draft. Please advise. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniprofessor, you've got a one sentence directory listing, a three sentence directory listing including a discount code (!), and a two sentence directory listing. Notability is not passing mentions in directories published by prestigious universities. If those are the three best of your 29 references, then I think that it can be fairly concluded that even if the other 26 references are considered, this company is not notable at this time. Of course, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and Forbes could all publish in-depth coverage of this company next week, and then notability would then be established. What is your connection with this company? Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Cullen328, I do not have a connection with this company, but I do research on online marketplaces and, in my personal opinion, this company is significantly more notable than many other online marketplaces mentioned under Wiki's Freelance marketplace websites or Online marketplaces in the United States (most of which I have edited).

Your point about sparse mentions is certainly valid, but again, I would argue that the notability of dozens of short mentions by universities, scientific societies, and peer-reviewed journals (only a fraction of which made it into my draft) is much greater than an in-depth article in Forbes, which according to Wiki's Notability (organizations and companies), is neither independent, nor reliable—don't you agree? Uniprofessor (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Uniprofessor, there is nothing wrong with articles written by Forbes staffers. Content written by Forbes "contributors" is an entirely different matter. To say that I disagree with your assessment is a massive understatement. If you have no connection with this company, then why not abandon this topic, and select an actually notable topic to wrote an article about? Cullen328 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Reference quantity is not a substitute for quality. David notMD (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've seen discussions like this in the nearly two decades I've been on Wikipedia. The point is well taken that a large quantity of trivial mentions indicate that a company is widely known, which implies that there's some threshold above which a large quantity of trivial mentions implies notability. However logical that may seem, Wikipedia has never had such a criterion for notability. And that's a good thing, because then companies could manufacture notability in a similar way that they inflate their social media followers with millions of fake follower accounts. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, @Cullen328! A short answer is: Based on my knowledge of the field and the entirety of independent, reliable, and secondary sources, I believe this company is notable enough to be added to the list of Freelance marketplace websites and Online marketplaces in the U.S. (frankly, much more so than many other companies currently listed under these categories).

As previously mentioned, I reviewed every single entry in those categories and edited most of them. When I felt ready to suggest my first article, I wanted it to be in my area of other expertise, and this online marketplace came to mind. What sets it apart from other marketplaces currently listed in the above-mentioned categories is that it is tailored primarily towards academia, rather than the business world (which may explain the lack of an in-depth “Forbes”-like coverage on this company). Once you account for this key difference, I would argue that being references by 30+ universities and scientific societies is by no means a lower bar than a business journalist at Forbes deciding to write a lengthy article on this company. @David notMD, I understand that the quantity of references does not substitute for quality, but in this case the emphasis is not on 30+ mentions but on the fact that the references come from universities and scientific societies, which are arguably as independent and reliable as it gets. In other words, since no research administrators at these institutions would want to be accused of advertising a business, even a 1-2 sentence mention of the company is, in my view, a greater sign of notability than a lengthy business interview of the company’s CEO in Forbes. (Notably, borrowing phrasing from @Cullen328, none of the online marketplaces currently listed in the above-mentioned categories seem to have significant coverage in “the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and Forbes” anyway.) On a related note, I disagree with @Anachronist that a company can artificially inflate its mentions at universities, scientific societies, and peer-reviewed journals—these are not the institutions that are easily “inflatable”.

I understand that not everyone would share my view, but I’m wondering if there is an experienced editor in the Teahouse who agrees with my arguments and could help me revise my draft before I resubmit it for the AfC review. I should mention that it was originally rejected not due to a lack of notability, but because I relied too much on the information from the company’s website. Based on the feedback received, I have substantially revised the draft to use almost exclusively the information and wording from the independent, reliable, and secondary sources. I was referred by the original reviewer of my draft to the Teahouse for help with editing, and I would truly appreciate it if anyone in this forum would be willing to help with the revision of my first article. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is like saying a book is notable because it's in the card catalog of the Library of Congress and multiple libraries of highly respected universities. No. Mentions by respectable institutions do not confer notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Not quite @Anachronist. To paraphrase your example, if the Library of Congress and multiple libraries of highly respected universities, whose job is to collect, systematize, and preserve books, and not to showcase any individual book—to avoid showing partiality or being accused of advertising some books but not others—decided to showcase a given book out of million of other books on their websites and each wrote a 2-3 sentence synopsis for this particular book, then, yes, I would consider this book to be notable, despite the fact that this synopsis is only a couple of sentences long and in spite of the fact that a Forbes journalist has not yet written an extensive summary of the book or interviewed the book author.

Thanks @David notMD for your very helpful edits and comments on my draft. Anyone else who is willing to contribute is more than welcome. I truly appreciate your help with editing my first article. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

How about less chitchat here and just resumbit it and see what the next reviewer opines. David notMD (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Uniprofessor Hi! Looking at the conversation, I am puzzled at the comparison you make several times with interviews by Forbes journalists/etc. Even if the interviews are published in a reliable source, however prestigious it is, they are not independent (as the content comes directly from the CEO/interviewed figure), and most often do not provide secondary commentary along with the interview. Thus, they do not confer notability either. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Chaotic Enby, I fully agree with you. The Forbes analogy refers to the point made earlier by one of the contributors, who wrote: "Of course, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and Forbes could all publish in-depth coverage of this company next week, and then notability would then be established." And my point was: If that would be the notability criterion for an online marketplace to deserve a Wikipedia article, then many (most?) of the current articles in the categories Freelance marketplaces and Online marketplaces in the United States (and I have reviewed every single one of them) would not meet this requirement and would have to be deleted. At best, they refer to Forbes-like business magazines, where a journalist writes a lengthy ("sponsored"?) coverage based on an interview of a CEO/CFO, etc. So, my point was that, even though I could not find such "significant" coverage for my suggested article in the hypothetical "Forbes", all references in my draft stem from independent, secondary, and reliable sources (such as universities, scientific societies, or peer-reviewed journals).

On a related note, @David notMD, following your advice, I resubmitted the version of the draft which you have edited and it was rejected again with the following comment: "Most of the sources are just mentions of the company in lists of similar companies." To give you some context, here are two examples:

1. North Carolina State University mentions the company at hand alongside ResearchGate (which has a Wikipedia page), and

2. University of Michigan mentions this company alongside Grammarly and Guru (both of which have a Wiki page)

This makes me wonder: Is the fact that a company is mentioned alongside other notable companies a true exclusion criterion? I would appreciate any advice how to further revise my first article before I resubmit it. Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Of course, the fact that it is mentioned alongside notable companies doesn't by itself exclude the topic from being notable, but it shows that this mention might not constitute more than routine coverage. If you suspect that other articles that you reviewed might not meet our notability guidelines, you can point out specific examples, and we can see if they should be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I suggest you to read this essay about why the existence of other articles on possibly non-notable topics is not an argument to publish this one. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Other articles on marketplaces that fail the inclusion criteria should be nominated for deletion rather than compound the problem by swelling their number. With over six million articles and more articles appearing per day than there are regular active editors, a lot of crap written by people with a conflict of interest is bound to slip through. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

COI not the issue here, but with a second Declined and Comments from experienced editors, the critical issue still appears to be references that are at length ABOUT E rather than brief mentions. Notability is not contagious, so mention of E at refs that mention other companies that are rightfully (or wrongfully) currently article subjects does not carry weight. If you can muster the patience, step away from the draft for a few months, then return with a renewed focus on finding quality references. (Fallow drafts are deleted at six months.)

Getting my Wikipedia uploaded.

Hi, I submitted my Wikipedia two weeks ago and it has not gone up yet. Who can I speak to about that? Happy to make any necessary changes but I've cited sources and structured it well. It is an entry for talent agent John Ludwig Burnham. Thanks so much!

All best, Harry DiBartolo

Draft:John Burnham (Talent Manager). Jburnhamatlas (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jburnhamatlas, as mentioned in the notice, there is an extensive queue of submitted drafts awaiting review. Please be patient and it will be reviewed in due time. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 04:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Jburnhamatlas. If you are "Harry DiBartolo", then why does your username reference the person you are writing about? Precisely what is your relationship with John Burnham? Did you see the notice at the top of your draft that says This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,310 pending submissions waiting for review? Do you understand that? Why do you repeatedly use ALL CAPS in your draft? Are you aware that this is perceived as shouting? Are you aware that there are several unresolved "citation needed" tags on your draft? Are you aware that many assertions in your draft are unreferenced? Are you aware that these are the types of problems that may well lead a reviewer to decline your draft if you do not correct them? Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are "Harry DiBartolo", then why does your username reference the person you are writing about? – John Burnham works for Atlas Entertainment. Harry DiBartolo works for Atlas Entertainment (per a Google search). Presumably this is WP:COI that ought to be declared somewhere? GhostOfNoMan 19:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Harry. Most of what you've written has no references. You state John Burnham is a talent manager, give the date and place of his birth, who his parents are, and where he attended school, but you don't include citations to show where the information came from. Every statement you make must have a reference to show the information is accurate. Help:Referencing for beginners has useful information.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe you have shown how John Burnham is notable. I tried to read your reference 3, to see if that contained helpful information, but I just got a “404” notice, so that source is unavailable to someone wanting to check what you’ve stated. It may be helpful for you to read Wikipedia:Notability.

While waiting to for your draft to be reviewed look for additional references for all of your unreferenced paragraphs, and give reasons why John Burnham would be considered notable. Best wishes on improving your draft article. Karenthewriter (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Karenthewriter, the reference is there; the problem is that it's linked to with a couple of extraneous "]" at the end. Knock this pair off the end of the quasi-URL, and the resulting URL will work. (Or anyway it did for me, a few minutes ago.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Jburnhamatlas, you say that the photo is your "own work"; but curiously it's the same as, and at the same reduced dimensions of, the photo atop this page about Burnham. If it really is your own work, then why didn't you upload the larger version? -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft now declined. Your account blocked until you change User name. David notMD (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Which infobox needed

Which infobox do i need to use on an article about an indian politician. most of infobox about politicians contain parameter which is about politicians power-holding or status that they hold, but the politician i am talking about has only contested elections and never won any, so has nothing in incumbents. which infobox needed for such place. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 03:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Having an inbox in a draft does not contribute to the draft being approved. Political candidates rarely qualify for articles unless they are notable for other reasons. David notMD (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

KMel49, infoboxes are entirely optional, highly controversial and completely unnecessary for new articles. If I was trying to get a draft accepted, I would pay no attention at all to infoboxes. If you like infoboxes, you can always try to add one after your draft is accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@KEmel49: {{Infobox person}}; but note that a politician may not be notable if they have never won an election. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing the profile picture on my Wikipedia

How do I change the profile picture that appears on my Wikipedia page?

Timothy Drury. Timothydrury (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Timothydrury: Please see WP:A picture of you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

(WP:A picture of you) Note that you should not edit the article yourself, as that would be a conflict of interest. Instead, once you have a picture, request the change on the article's talk page. win8x (talking | spying) 20:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Question for Redirect

Is it okay or acceptable if I make a redirect for the October 7th attacks? Rager7 (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If you consider October 7th attacks is something a reader might reasonably type into the search box, I suggest you be WP:BOLD and go ahead. Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Rager7 (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

NFL Rosters

What happened to the Non football injury and illnss links on NFL rosters? Kelliecharging (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Kelliecharging. I suggest that you raise this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League. Cullen328 (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

How to make infoboxes consistent without plagiarism?

Hello. I hope you are doing well. I am planning to create a new wikipedia page for a plant species which would have an infobox in it. I understand that not only direct plagiarism but also "close plagiarism" is prohibited in Wikipedia. How could I match the infoboxes of other userpages without plagiarizing them? Thank you. Grapes of the bear (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC) (did I sign correctly?)

Hello, Grapes of the bear. Infoboxes are freely licensed for re-use or modification by anyone. There is no issue with plagiarism. Yes, you signed correctly. Cullen328 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Using infobox templates is not in itself plagiarism, as that's their intended use. If the plant species are close enough that they share identical or similar features/descriptions/etc., I wouldn't worry about it and certainly wouldn't class that as plagiarism. The important thing is that there are reliable sources. GhostOfNoMan 19:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about plargrising on Wikipedia. Every edit you(or other editors) make are licensed to permit copying with attribution. You can just say in the edit summary "Following content was copied from example page name, see that page's history for attribution". or something akin to that. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Article Valeria Biletska

Hello, friends. I have tried several times to publish Valeriia Biletska's article. Every time I get blocked for some inexplicable reason. Explanation "links do not correspond to links". If you are an editor - indicate what to correct and do not write back with prepared templates... This article is approved in the Ukrainian and Russian wiki. Maybe someone will agree to edit my mistakes. Belroman (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Please understand that each language version of Wikipedia is separate, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Maybe there are editors that fix it... Maybe it's a paid service? I'm ready to pay, but I don't want to endlessly guess what the mistakes are and read endless instructions.. I wasted a lot of time on a small article. Maybe you can advise something. Thank you. Belroman (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

PLEASE do not pay anyone, you will be scammed, there is nothing in your draft to suggest that they pass WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Belroman, many of the assertions in your draft are unreferenced and therefore violate the Verifiability policy. Several of your references are about a Ukrainian style of art and do not mention Biletska. They are of no value in establishing her notability. Her website is not independent of her and also does not establish her notability. The only useful reference that really discusses her is about her refugee status and family, and her son who is a prisoner of war in Russia. Her artwork is mentioned but is not the main focus of the story. Cullen328 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am try fixed it. Belroman (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Valeriia Biletska continues to have a lot of content that is not verified by references. Of greater importance, the existing refs do not support her being a Wikipedia-notable artist. David notMD (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How to see my edits

Hi I logged back in after so long. How do we see our edits again Saankhyareddipalli (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Saankhyareddipalli, and welcome back to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. You can see your editing history at Special:Contributions/Saankhyareddipalli. There will be a shortcut to that somewhere on your screen, but it depends which device and skin you are using: for me it is at the top right, there is a down arrow next to a silhouette of a person, and one of the options is "Contributions". ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there any guideline for mentioning a country in the lede of an article of a company, when the company is no longer based in the country?

On IKEA, I removed the word "Swedish" from the first sentence since the company has been based in the Netherlands for tax avoidance reasons since the past so many years, but it was reverted after some time with zero explanation. I agree that the company was founded in Sweden and is associated with Swedish culture, but personally I do not think those are valid reasons to use "Swedish" in the lede when there is very little non-running-stores business IKEA does in Sweden anymore. I couldn't find any policy on this, so can anyone point me in the right direction? Tube·of·Light 17:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tube of Light The problem may be that the WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize what is said in the rest of the article, not just to say what might be true currently. As a summary, you could alter that sentence to something like "founded in Sweden but now headquartered in the Netherlands" or similar. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Thanks, I've gone ahead and used the phrasing you provided with attribution in the edit summary. Tube·of·Light 17:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tube of Light Note that the lead had the Netherlands part duplicated, so I removed second mention. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Michael D. Turnbull Oh, I didn't notice that, thanks! Tube·of·Light 11:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, I want to write an article about a species.. so, I have gathered the informations from ScienceDirect, ResearchGate, NCBI, MDPI, ACS and Seizure. May I know, which of these sources are generally reliable. If these are not, where should I extract the informations.? —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 11:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectodefecto Some of these are databases, so indirect sources that will have records to to the main scientific literature published by the ACS or in journals like Seizure. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources like reviews, if possible, but in topics such as species you may be forced to have some primary ones. Notability is not usually an issue for species. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

alright. many thanks. —𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨(𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 16:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! ScienceDirect is a deprecated source (after discussion by the community). According to Wikipedia, magazines, news (or newspapers), scholarly articles, journals and books are reliable sources. Unreliable sources include social media and blog posts. Or you can download the script User:Headbomb/unreliable to detect what is a reliable source and what is not. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is ScienceDirect a deprecated source? Grapes of the bear (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I tried to add a reference that uses the website ScienceDirect, but it's saying "An automated filter thinks you are adding a link to a deprecated source. Deprecated sources are ones that are considered unreliable after discussion by the community" Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Electrou Science direct is a database run by Elsevier and is widely used when finding sources. The only part that is deprecated is the machine-generated "topic" page, as mentioned at WP:RSPS. It is possible that the source you had found via Science Direct was a journal that itself was deprecated. You would need to provide more detail about the circumstance when you ran into the edit filter for us to advise further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft decline

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lake_Megachad

My wikipedoa article got declined because there was already an article, but it was on Lake Chad. Is it possible for me to ever make a Lake Mega Chad wikipedia article that is independent.

My argument for my case (dont take it aggresively please) is that there are many seperate articles that are mentioned in other articles.

Is it just that I need to make my article more detailed (I could understand that, it doesn't have a lot, but there is a wikipedia article about Koksvere, Estonia that's shorter than mine (Koksvere).

Also, if it's possible to get a review overturned I would like that, but I will definitely take suggestions.

I hope this thing doesn't make me sound mad. I'm just asking. Missourian BJMD (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Missourian BJMD, your draft wasn't rejected. It was merely declined. This means that you're invited to improve it. I can't guess whether it would be possible for you to succeed in creating a good article, but what you've done so far shows promise and certainly your chosen subject sounds promising. ¶ I haven't looked at the article Koksvere; perhaps it's crap, but even if so, "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS". -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

Also I used Koksvere because it does not have a lot of content (it's short). I used it to show that some articles have not a lot of information if that was why I had my.

Thank you very much. Missourian BJMD (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Missourian BJMD, I think it's very likely that an independent article could be successfully created about Lake Mega Chad – I recently watched an hour-long YouTube video about the history of the Sahara (The Ghosts of the Green Sahara: here (Chapter 8, Lake Mega Chad starts at 34:22, but watch the whole thing), which says a good deal about it, for example.

The article Lake Chad contains only a little information about Lake Mega Chad (and you can re-use it and its sources in your Draft – check them out), so if you can find more Reliable sources specifically about the latter, and summarise their information in your draft, it should soon grow. Drafts often go through several rounds of being submitted and declined pending further improvements, so don't be discouraged. Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Also I'll probably add onto the Lake Mega Chad bit on Lake Chad. Missourian BJMD (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! Your draft has been declined, as it is already covered on Wikipedia. Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That's what the decline message said. But could I get it published if I make it distinct enough? Missourian BJMD (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes Electrou (formerly Susbush) (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Missourian BJMD (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Updating a bio

Richard Joseph Cashin PC OC ONL has asked that his bio be updated. Is this possible? If so whom do I send it to? Thank you. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cashin) PaddyKeefe (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Paddy. Has what he wants it updated to, been covered by Independent, Reliable sources? If yes, someone else will add it, as you have a Conflict of Interest. If no, it will not be added by anyone, until independent, reliable sources back it. You might also want to read this page to aid your understanding of how we operate. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 16:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@PaddyKeefe See WP:ASFAQ for guidance for article subjects. For new material, they (or those editing on their behalf) should use edit requests on the Talk Page of the article, so that editors who do not have any conflict of interest can consider the suggestions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Solved! PaddyKeefe (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@PaddyKeefe Not solved, since other editors are reverting your edits. Please follow the procedure that has already been explained to you here. All content about living people must, by policy be cited to reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is my article declined ?

Why is my article declined ? and what do i need to do pls. Imolejrl (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Imolejrl I assume you refer to User:Imolejrl/sandbox. You have writen about a living person but you have not followed the policy described for such biographies, including the need to provide inline citations, not just a list of references at the end. I doubt that your draft shows this individual is notable in the specific way Wikipedia demands. Also, you have not followed our manual of style in your use of bolding but that could easily be fixed if the other concerns were addressed. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Removed bolding. Need refs. David notMD (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Review Article Content before Upload

Hello, guys. I have created a draft in my sandbox, and I would like to get some feedback to improve it before I move it to the main article space. Could someone take a look at it and give me your feedback? It would really help tome if you could give me some point of view on what to improve before publishing it. Here is the link: User:AleFalgheri/sandbox. AleFalgheri (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that this is your first attempt at creating an article, I recommend submitting to AfC versus moving to mainspace. That way you get a Reviewer's comments if Declined. David notMD (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Can IP users do merges?

I am making a merge on a draft called List of Peter von Uslar's Caucasian Alphabets and Voiceless Cyrillic letter El variants,I will merge the pages Draft:Voiceless El,Draft:Voiceless El with comma,and I will merge Draft:Shha with Cil top too. Is it ok to merge drafts? 86.97.98.119 (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. You seem to have been creating and editing a load of drafts about funky Cyrillic letters, without a single source cited in any of them that I have looked at.

Trying to write a Wikipedia article without first finding reliable sources is like trying to build a house without first surveying the ground and determining that it is fit to build on. At best you will have to go back and build the foundations afterwards (and possibly have to rebuild parts of the house); at worst the land will not be fit to build on (the required sources don't exist to establish notability) and the house will fall down and all your work will be wasted.

I recommend you choose one of your drafts, read about notability carefully, and find sources to establish notability, and only continue with the rest if your chosen draft actually gets accepted into the encyclopaedia. ColinFine (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)